Army R, D & A

Family of Scatterable Mines

{ see page 6)

Vol. 21 No. 2 March-April 1980

OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE RDA COMMUNITY, established 1959

Assistant Secretary
of the Army

(Research, Development
and Acquisition)

Dr. Percy A. Pierre

Department of the Army
Deputy Chief of Staff for
Research, Development and
Acquisition

LTG Donald R. Keith

Commanding General
U S. Army Materiel Development
and Readiness Command

GEN John R. Guthrie

Editor L. VanLoan Naisawald

Associate Editor George J. Makuta
Assistant Editor Harvey Bleicher
Staff Assistant Mrs. Thelma Heisler

( ~

FEATURES

Atlanta VI: A New Sense of Urgency 1

Improving the M113A1 Armored Personnel Carrier —

Anthony Comito 5

Scatterable Mines — Martin B. Chase 6

Tank Crew Turbulence — Newell K. Eaton and Barbara A. Black 10
The Case for an Automated Materiel Acquisition Handbook —

Gerald Malakoff and David B. Scott Jr 13

Improving Railroad Safety Through Insulation Technology —

Dr. Charles Anderson 14

ADPA Sponsors Executive Seminar on Army Requirements ... 18

The Advanced Planning Briefing: Its Evolution and Status —

John F. X. Mannix 22

Summary of Selected RDTE Systems Planned for FY 1981 . . Inside

Back Cover

ABOUT THE COVER:

Front cover shows Family of
Scatterable Mines in tests with
tank. Back cover gives acronyms
and spells out the 7 members of
the FASCAM family, designed to
deliver mines to the battlefield
via artillery tube, rocket launch-
er, armored vehicles or aircraft.

DEPARTMENTS

Capsules 28

Conferences and Symposia 30

Awards 31 |

Career Programs 32

Personnel Actions 32 |

Reader’s Guide 32

V )

DISTRIBUTION is based on requirements submitted on DA Form 12-5. Army agency requirements must be mailed to the U.S. Army AG Publications
Center, 2800 Eastern Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21220.

Distribution on an individual basis is restricted to active and reserve officers who hold a specialty indicator of R&D (52), Procurement (97), Atomic
Energy (51), and Project Management (6-T).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS. Individual addresses are provided by Officer Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, VA, and the USARPC, St. Louis, MO.
Where active officer addresses are incorrect, individuals should contact their respective officer personnel office to ensure forwarding of correct address.
Reservists should contact USARPC, ATTN: AGUZ-OEPMD, St. Louis, MO 63132.

OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES requirements should be submitted directly to U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, ATTN:
DRCDE-LN, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333.

ALL NON-U. S. GOVERNMENT agencies, firms and organizations must obtain this publication through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Single copies: domestie-$2.00, foreign-$2.50. Subscription rates (6 issues annually); domestic, APO and
FPO addresses-$7.50, foreign mailing-$9.40.

Published bimonthly by the Development and Engineering Directorate (DRCDE), HQ U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, Alexandria, VA, in coordination with the DARCOM
Public Affairs Office, the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Office of the Surgeon General’s Medical R&D Command, and the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acqui-
siton, HQ Department of the Army, to serve all elements of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Acquisition community.

Grateful acknowledgement is made for the valuable assistance of Public Affairs Offices within the Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, Office of the Surgeon General, Office of the Chief
of Engineers, Army Health Services Command, Army Training and Doctrine Command, Army Forces Command, avid related activities. Use of funds for printing of this publication has been approved by De-
partment of Army, 23 Feb. 1979, in accordance with provisions of AR 310-1.

Purpose: To improve informal communication among all segments of the Army scientific community and other government R.D&A agencies; to further understanding of Army R.D&A progress, problem
areas and program planning, to stimulate more closely integrated and coordinated effort among Army R.D&A activities; to express views of leaders, as pertinent to their responsibilities, and to keep
personnel informed on matters germane to their welfare and pride of service.

Picture Credits: Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs are from U.S. Army sources.

Submission of Material: All articles submitted for publication must be channeled through the technical liaison or Public Affairs Officer at installation or command level.

Bylined Articles: Primary responsibility for opinions of bylined authors rests with them; their views do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of Department of the Army.

\0\ .•■62-/3*. -2.1/2.

Atlanta VI: A New Sense of Urgency

The unofficial theme of the re-
cent Atlanta VI conference was
unquestionably “Th^J”^ is so little
time.” And with, events in Af-
ghanistan iiramTj^iolizing t he
headlines, the npeeting of seni'q'r \
Army leaders and corporateexec- \
utives to d|set|s^|f^utffal^®<)b-
lems pertaining to the Army’s
readiness was permeated with a
new sense of urgency.

The seminar. .was opened by
GEN Henry A. MiTfe^ES^Ret.),
president of the American De-
fense Preparedness Association
(ADPA). Atlanta VI, cosponsored
by the ADPA and the National
Security Industrial Association,
was a continuation of a yearly ex-
ecutive level seminar begun in
1974. The seminars have the ob-
jective of improving Army indus-
try business relations.

This year’s meeting, 13-15 Feb-
ruary 1980, saw over 340 attend-
ees, of which industry was repre-
sented by six chairmen of the
board, 40 presidents or senior op-
erating officials, and 150 vice
presidents, and a number of mar-
keting directors and other senior
officials. The Army was repre-
sented by Dr. Percy Pierre, As-
sistant Secretary of the Army
(RDA), the Chief of Staff GEN Ed-
ward C. Meyer, GEN John R.
Guthrie, GEN Donn Starry, GEN
R. M. Shoemaker, LTG Robert
Baer, and a number of the DAR-
COM commodity commanders.

The theme of Atlanta VI was to
discuss three vital and now criti-
cally timely issues: upgrading the
industrial preparedness base, im-
proving the quality and reliabil-
ity of modern weapon systems,
and finding ways to improve the
overall acquisition, procurement
and contracting functions.

GEN Miley, in kicking off the
proceedings, noted that the At-
lanta meetings had begun in
1974, occasioned by the changed
environment that included the
institution of the DSARC system
and the post-Vietnam climate. He
remarked that he was pleased to
see that the industrial mobiliza-
tion base problem was to be a top-
ic of discussion, as he saw a simi-
larity of today’s conditions with

John D. Blanchard

those of 1940.

Mr. John D. Blanchard, assist-
ant deputy for Materiel Develop-
ment, DARCOM, then took over
the podium to set the stage for
the program proper. He noted
that the 4-star level of atten-
dance at the conference indicated
the Army’s dedication to its inter-
pretation of the importance of the
meeting, and that industry would
have the opportunity to hear this
level express Army views as well

GEN John R. Guthrie

as having the opportunity to ex-
change views with these senior
policy makers.

Blanchard chose to begin by re-
viewing briefly the topic of
“Where Are We Today?” From
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s
book,* published by that officer in
1937 and reflecting his “lessons
learned” notes copiously hand-
written following each of his com-
bat experiences in WWI, Blan-
chard quoted several passages to
suggest the similarity of histori-
cal conditions with those that

now confront us, and how Rom-
mel saw the cause and solution.
In drawing a parallel for the need
for industrial preparedness,
Blanchard noted that “In a man
to man fight, the winner is he who
has one more round in his maga-
zine.” Another quote cited the ca-
pability of a few dedicated squads
to bring about essential change.
He suggested there were suf-
ficient numbers of dedicated patri-
ots in the audience to make up a
few picked squads that could
make the country aware of the
grave dangers that confront us.

Mr. Blanchard then introduced
GEN John R. Guthrie, DARCOM
commander.

The DARCOM commander
opened by reflecting on previous
Atlanta conferences and his feel-
ing for the need to improve the
communication process between
the Army and industry, particu-
larly for the Army to benefit from
“feedback” from industry. The
problem was studied by a smaller
meeting in May 1979, dubbed “At-
lanta on the Anacostia,” and the
objectives that emerged from
that meeting “will be evidenced,”
the General hoped, “in the bal-
ance of these two days.”

Guthrie noted that GEN
Meyer, Army Chief of Staff, felt
the need for total Army in-
volvement in the seminar, for in-
dustry to know where the Army
is heading. Accordingly, GEN
Starry of TRADOC and GEN
Shoemaker of FORSCOM, would
be active participants.

The DARCOM commander told
the group that as he prepared for
this seminar, he was struck by a
sense of deja vu, “that the pat-
tern of world events is repeating
itself, that it may be mocking us
because we did not earlier heed
its warnings.” Using news head-
lines of May 1977, May 1978, and
May 1979, Guthrie noted that “we
have reaped the whirlwind . . .
which was growing during this
period of time. . . .”

Using statistics that compared
U.S. versus Soviet expenditures,

*Attacks. Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. Athe-
na Press, Inc., P.O. Box 776, Vienna, VA 22180.
$14.95

March- April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 1

and personnel assets, the General
struck out by saying that com-
placency has been an overriding
bane. The nation drifted militar-
ily and economically, and the na-
tional will and drive slackened.
Innovation, as evidenced by new
patents, has dropped.

Citing Dr. Ruth Davis, former
Deputy Under Secretary of De-
fense for Research and Advanced
Technology, he endorsed her be-
lief that the U.S. was living off
the fruits of the R&D of the 1965-
70 era. In her words, he said,
there was “scientific apathy and
technological disarray.”

Such an assessment was hardly
comforting, said Guthrie, in view
of the fact that the U.S. may well
be challenged repeatedly, in-
directly if not directly, in the next
few years. The record of Angola,
Ethiopia, South Yemen, Cam-
bodia, and Afghanistan speaks
for itself, said the General.

A sense of urgency was re-
quired was the point Guthrie
thrust onto the audience, citing
Lincoln’s message of April 1861 to
the governor of Pennsylvania “I
think the necessity of being ready
increases. Look to it!”

Afghanistan, said Guthrie,
sums up our past slackness and
our current state of sober aware-
ness. Hitting hard at the need to
act now, Guthrie stressed that
the nation does not have the lux-
ury of time to debate whether or
how fast to regird itself. Action is
needed now. As one prominent
figure recently put it, said Guth-
rie “ There is so little time.”

While the issue of possible draft
registration will be debated by
the Congress, Guthrie cautioned
that “there is little need to de-
bate what our individual and cor-
porate response ought to be in
the materiel arena.” It takes in-
dustry the longer time to gear up
and produce than it does to regis-
ter people for a draft, and histori-
cally the U.S. has since 1812 suf-
fered from a deficiency in getting
equipment to complete training
and equipment with which to
fight.

Citing the vast materiel mod-
ernization effort now underway,
the Genera] soberly cautioned
that these systems now entering
the field are technologically old;

GEN Donn Starry

their technology has been sur-
passed in our labs, and probably
in the Soviets’. We ought now, he
continued, to be well into the
planning and testing stages for
the systems designed to give us
technological superiority not lat-
er than 1990.

To do this will require the
closest collaboration between
TRADOC, DARCOM, industry,
and the using commands. We
must convert quickly the leading
edge of technology into the sys-
tems we need by means of a
planned and stabilized program,
quantitatively and qualitatively.

Guthrie noted industry’s belief
that lead times can be sub-
stantially reduced by improved
administrative relationships. It
must be a mutual effort, he
stressed.

The condition of the industrial
base and the status of industrial
defense agreements also were sin-
gled out by the DARCOM com-
mander as being of serious con-
cern. There are not, he noted,
necessary war reserve stocks to
permit slackness. The same wor-
ry of 1940 is present today, the
lack of machine tools and the long
lead time required to get into
high gear.

“We have to shake off what
seems to me to have been our
general posture of the last few
years — reacting,” said Guthrie.
We need to begin now to upgrade
the base, to give us the capability
to sustain the total Army under
any circumstances.

He noted that a senior industry
representative had bemoaned to
him not long ago the fact that the
U.S. has, in the representative’s
view, no clear national defense
industrial policy. A change was
needed, the argument continued,

a change in attitude in the coun-
try to accommodate geopolitical
decisions when U.S. industrial
preparedness is at stake. It re-
quires a new study, generation of
new policy, and intelligent imple-
mentation.

The need to start, said Guthrie,
is urgent — “there is so little
time.”

The audience was then given
an overview by GEN Donn Star-
ry, TRADOC commander, of how
his command derives require-
ments and also a glimpse into on-
going planning for the Army of
the future.

Starry stressed the complexity
of the process, the need to con-
stantly be trading off for balance,
for reality, for attainability.

Sophistication of equipment,
said Starry, is not the answer in
itself.

The TRADOC commander told
of the TRADOC effort called the
Battlefield Development Plan — a
way to focus the Army’s effort to
get from here to there, a road
map for the future.

From this plan have come cer-
tain obvious shortfalls. There are
ongoing supporting studies on Di-
vision 86, Light Division 86, Corps
86, etc. All are aimed at providing
guidance on “how to get there.”

Speaking of the Light Division
86, Starry noted that this force
would have to be highly mobile,
heavy in firepower, and rapidly
deployable. Its equipment might
well be items available now or in
the next five years.

Command and control, the Gen-
eral said, are under intensive
study for new ways to provide
them vital services.

All future needs, he continued,
are being thought of in terms of
redundancy, robustness and re-
siliency— the need to be able to
keep going, keep operating.

The Army’s doctrine, said Star-
ry, is being reviewed. The need is
now to play for an “integrated
battlefield” — combat involving

nuclear and other forces as well
as conventional weapons. The Ar-
my has no choice but to plan this
way in light of the things the oth-
er fellow is saying.

The Army once led the Free
World in this area, but has lost
this lead. The nuclear superiority

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE March-Apri! 1980

2

we once enjoyed, said Starry, is
now gone. We now find ourselves
in dire need of providing new doc-
trine for this contingency, and
this will require new materiel in
areas such as vehicle protection
and decontamination means.

Doctrine now says that the U.S.
Army must deepen the battle-
field. Not only must the forward
enemy elements be attacked, but
simultaneously his follow-up, and
particularly his combat support
echelons must be attacked. This
brings forward the need for new
intelligence systems to provide
real time accurate data to kill
these elements in the deepened
area.

The element of training, said
Starry, must play a vital role in
future materiel. Complex equip-
ment that the soldier cannot op-
erate or keep operational is to be
avoided.

Summing up the Army’s needs
as he saw it, GEN Starry said
that command and control had to
be looked at closely; the need to
see deep into the battle area
would be critical; information en-
gineering is needed to sort out
the mass of data for a command-
er, providing him with critical in-
formation only; and the Army
has to plan to operate in an in-
tegrated battlefield.

Starry closed by stressing that
time was short, that technology
existed in many of industry’s
labs, it must be translated into
usable systems in the fastest pos-
sible time.

As a setting for the panel ses-
sion to follow, Mr. Robert L. John-
son, former ASA (R&D), and now
president, McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics, reviewed the find-
ings and recommendations of a
mini-executive seminar held in
May 1979 at Fort McNair, Wash-
ington, DC. Three broad prob-
lems, he said, were identified as
plaguing the military-industrial
cooperation.

These were: (1) getting a pro-
gram started; (2) developing the
hardware once a program was
started; and (3) producing the
equipment once development was
completed.

Under the first of these there
was the lack of definition of
stated requirements. There was

GEN Edward C. Meyer
confusion over the RSI issue.
Further, inadequate front-end
funding, especially in the com-
petition phases hinders; excess
competition leads to delays and
cost; and doctrine has lagged and
not guided developments.

Continuing, Johnson said prob-
lems in starting a program also
were caused by excessive front-
end technology, requirements
were based on technology capa-
bility rather than need, all pro-
grams are structured to avoid all
the troubles of all past programs,
affordability has been recognized
too late, and finally, competition
losers can stall the process.

As for the problems in the de-
velopment phase, the group had
concluded that causes included
inadequate front-end funding; in-
adequate program manager re-
serves, changing requirements
and no forced Army consensus,
too many people and organiza-
tions providing guidance, micro-
management at top echelons, i.e.,
Congress, OSD, DA, and DAR-
COM, striving for too much high
performance initially, no plans to
evolve a system into higher per-
formance, too many cultists di-
recting the project manager, and
badly troubled programs are not
stopped.

Turning to the problems of pro-
ducing systems, Johnson said the
findings were that there was too
much series testing, there was in-
adequate concurrency with de-
velopment, that the user had not
shown sufficient intensity and en-
thusiasm in obtaining a new sys-
tem, that low production rates
slow the IOC date and raise costs,
and that late contractor deliv-
eries hurt.

Johnson continued that in the
general management area, there
was a belief that the Army
needed an Army of the Future
Plan, that there was a similar
lack of a JCS plan for Integrated
Armed Forces of the future, that
the present acquisition strategy
was acceptable but the people in
it must be disciplined, the con-
sensus approach was a typical
bad committee approach that re-
sulted in anonymity rather than
leadership, the DSARC system
was out of phase with the budget
cycle, and finally, the Army’s tour
for project managers was too
short.

Possible solutions, he contin-
ued, included greater reliance on
evolutionary product improve-
ment, the prioritization of new
starts, start new programs only
after establishment of a firm re-
quirement, that over-opti-
mization should be avoided, the
competition phases should be tai-
lored and shortened, realistic cost
estimates rather than the lowest
bid should be followed, both ad-
vanced development and full-
scale engineering development
should be adequately funded, and
the military PM should be autho-
rized to run his program.

Johnson was followed by Mr.
Gerald J. Tobias, president, Si-
korsky Aircraft, who pointed out
the total impact on the defense
industry — and in particular its
suppliers, of inadequate govern-
ment defense planning.

The boom to bust trends of the
past have not encouraged enthu-
siastic industry participation,
particularly at the vendor level.
This has had a serious impact on
industry’s ability today to re-
spond to any increase in produc-
tion or expansion in mobilization
base. Multi-year funding, as well
as planning, as the civilian mar-
ket practices, would improve
things, said Tobias.

These presentations were fol-
lowed by a lively discussion from
the floor addressed to a panel
composed of Johnson, Tobias,
LTG Robert J. Baer, and MG Don-
ald M. Babers.

The luncheon speaker was
Chief of Staff GEN Edward C.
Meyer. The General began by
noting that in 1974, when the

March-April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 3

first Atlanta meeting was held,
the news of the day contained col-
umns on the reduction of Army
strength, the possible reduction
of U.S. Army forces in Europe,
and the general philosophy that
the U.S. Army would not be in-
volved anywhere but in Europe.
Indeed, he said, he had been que-
ried at that time to provide an an-
swer to the question as to why
the country needed an Army?

The answer evolved, he said, in
three parts. There was a need for
an Army the day before a war in
order to provide deterrence;
there was a need on the day of the
war in order to fight and win; and
on the day after the war the Ar-
my was needed in order to pro-
vide the ability to negotiate from
strength.

In 1974, Meyer continued, the
civilian industrial community
was faced with the question of
the desirability of continuing a
close defense relationship in the
face of loss of profit margins, con-
stant changes, lack of continuity,
etc.

He expressed his concern about
the state of the nation’s industri-
al base today. The “Arsenal of
Democracy,” said Meyer, is not
today up to sustaining a long war,
and one who plans for a short war
is apt to get a short losing war.

The precedent for miscalcula-
tion, said the General, has been
set, by the Federal Army in 1861,
by the Germans in 1914, and even
by the U.S. in 1941-42 as it used
the ocean barrier to buy time.

Readiness of today’s Army, he
noted, was vital, but sustaining
that Army is equally important.
He proposed a vigorous inventory
of the nation’s production capa-
bility. He told the group that in a
forthcoming mobilization exer-
cise, industry would be asked to
participate to better familiarize
all with problems and capabili-
ties. Quoting GEN Omar Bradley,
Meyer noted that nations not ar-
mies go to war. There was a vital
need to preclude surprises, that
the base be in the best possible
shape when it may be called up-
on.

While there was some concern
over the less than optimal pro-
curement rates of new Army
equipment flowing to the field,

GEN Meyer noted that there is a
very positive side in that it is pro-
viding a warm potentially ex-
pandable base.

GEN Meyer urged the assem-
bled group of industrialists and
military to come up with work-
able answers to enhancing the
mobilization base.

The afternoon session was de-
voted to a down-to-grips series of
three work groups each of which
considered a specific topic. One
shop considered “Quality/Relia-
bility of Modern Weapon Sys-
tem,” and had a panel chaired by
Mr. Sidney Stark, vice president,
Missile Systems Division, Ray-
theon Co., with MG Oscar C.
Decker, commander, USTAR-
COM, as cochairman, panel mem-
bers were: Mr. Seymour Lorber,
director, Quality Assurance,
DARCOM; MG Albert H. Light,
commander, USAARRCOM;
BG(P) Albert N. Stubblebine, III,
commander, USAERADCOM;
Mr. Ralph E. Hawes Jr., vice pres-
ident/general manager, Pomona
Division, General Dynamics
Corp.; Mr. A. H. Grava, president,
Heavy Vehicle Components
Group, Rockwell International;
and Mr. Douglas G. Corderman,
senior vice president, Emerson
Electric Co.

The second workshop consid-
ered the problem of “Improving
the Acquisition/Procurement/
Contracting Function — Trends

and Issues.” Chairman was Mr.
David Westermann, president
and chief executive officer, Hazel-
tine Corp., with MG John K. Sto-

ner Jr., commander, USACER-
COM, as cochairman. Panelists
were: MG Jere W. Sharp, director,
Procurement and Production,
DARCOM; Mr. Henry B. Jones,
director, Procurement and Pro-
duction, USATARCOM; Mr. Rob-
ert G. Seeds, deputy for Pro-
curement and Production,
USAARRCOM; Mr. Barry J. Shil-
lito, vice president, Teledyne Inc.;
Mr. Gaynor Lindsey, vice presi-
dent, Administration, Bell Heli-
copter, Division of Textron Inc.;
and Mr. Joseph F. Caligiuri Sr.,
vice president, Litton Industries.

The third work group consid-
ered “Industrial Preparedness —
The Mobilization Base.” Mr. John
J. Ryan, vice president/general
manager, Vought Michigan
Plant, was chairman, with LTG
Harold F. Hardin Jr., DCG for
Materiel Readiness, DARCOM,
as cochairman. Panelists were:
MG William E. Eicher, command-
er, USAARRCOM; MG Story C.
Stevens, commander, USAAV-
RADCOM; MG Emmett Paige,
commander, USACORADCOM;
Mr. Claude H. Molde, vice presi-
dent, Operations, Honeywell Inc.;
Mr. Winston S. Smith, vice presi-
dent, Singer Corp.; and Mr. John
MacCrostie, group vice president,
Ordnance Group, FMC Corp.

The morning of the 2d day was
devoted to summarizing the find-
ings of the three workshops held
the previous afternoon. It began
with a panel chaired by Mr. Nor-
man P. Augustine, former Under
Secretary of the Army and As-
sistant Secretary of the Army

(Concluded on page 9)

DARCOM Deputy Commander for Materiel Development LTG Robert J.
Baer chats with (1. to r.) Dr. P. W. Lett, director. Defense Engineering Divi-
son, Chrysler; Mr. E. A. Miller, vice president. Engineering, Sanders As-
so., Inc.; and Dr. F. P. Adler, vice president, Hughes Aircraft Co.

4 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

March-April 1980

Improving the M113A1 Armored Personnel Carrier

By Anthony Comito

The M113A1 Armored Personnel Carrier, the Army’s
most versatile and widely used vehicle, is now an even
more valuable asset to the Army, following a major prod-
uct improvement program. In fact, a recommendation
has been submitted to the Department of the Army to
type classify the new version - the M113A1E1.

In the latter part of 1979, a Development-In-Process
Review culminated a 2-year effort to increase the power
of the M113A1 and improve its reliability. Principal par-
ties in this effort are the U.S. Army Tank Automotive
R&D Command’s Weapon Systems Manager’s Office and
the M113 Project Manager’s Office.

The M113A1E1 is an updated version of the M113A1
which has been in the field since 1964. In late 1976, work
was initiated to improve the M113A1 by improving the
cooling and suspension systems and the mobility.

The cooling system was changed to increase cooling ca-
pacity, allowing the vehicle to operate at higher ambient
temperatures. The suspension system was changed to
provide smoother cross-country ride performance result-
ing in an increase in cross-country speed.

These two improvements resulted in redesignation of
the vehicle as M113A2, introduced into production in July
1979. Rebuild began in August 1979. Once the suspension
was improved, further improvement in cross-country
mobility was limited by the available power.

There has been a trend to increase gross vehicle weight
in the M113 family of vehicles as in all tracked vehicles.
Some members of the M113A1 family of vehicles have a
gross vehicle weight as high as 28,400 pounds. This in-
crease in weight has caused concern because of the corre-
sponding decreasing vehicle horsepower-per-ton (HP-ton)
ratios. They range from 17.1 for the current M113A1 to a
low of 14.8 for the M548. (See accompanying graph.)

Decreasing HP-ton ratios degrade vehicle performance
characteristics, mobility, and reliability. Thus, in addi-
tion to incorporating the cooling and suspension improve-
ment, the M113A1E1 program was initiated to restore
and improve performance while improving reliability.

Major improvements include conversion of the current
6V53 (212 HP) diesel engine to the turbocharged 6V537T
(275 HP), and replacement of the TX100-1 transmission,
transfer gearcase, steering differential and pivot brakes
with the X200-3 Detroit Diesel Allison transmission.

The X200-3 transmission provides: four forward speeds
over the present three; hydrostatic steering for smoother
turning with less driver effort and less shock loading on
the suspension system; and greater power efficiency re-
sulting in more usable sprocket horsepower and fuel sav-
ings. Replacement of these major drive line components
resulted in an increase in overall drive line RAM-D (Reli-
ability, Availability, Maintainability and Durability).

Together, the new engine and transmission have
shown, from test results, to provide better vehicle mobil-
ity, increased vehicle range and fuel economy, and de-
creased support costs.

The new engine and transmission have shown, from
test results, to provide better mobility, increased range
and fuel economy, and decreased support costs.

Vehicle operator controls have also been changed. A
steering wheel and brake pedal replace the current steer
laterals that perform both the steering and braking func-
tions. These changes minimize driver fatigue and reduce
operator training - both verified during operational tests.

Testing was unique in that it consisted of 10 vehicles,
five M113A1E1 pilot vehicles and five M113A1 baseline
vehicles. Each vehicle completed 6,000 DT II (Develop-
ment Test) and 1,500 OT II (Operational Test) miles.

DT II tests were conducted by the Test and Evaluation
Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Yuma Prov-
ing Ground, AZ, and the Cold Regions Test Center in
Alaska. OT II tests were conducted at Fort Carson, CO,
by the Operational Test and Evaluation Agency.

During OT II, and M113A1E1 and M113A1 vehicles

M113A1 gross engine h.p. per ton

were run side by side as much as possible. At the start of
OT II tests, external bolt-on fuel cells were added to the
M113A1E1 Rise Power Train vehicles for evaluation.

The external fuel cells were approved for type classifi-
cation at an earlier IPR for the M113A2 and are under
consideration by the Army for application in production
and depot rebuild. External fuel cells will provide in-
creased stowage and vehicle survivability.

A reliability improvement in MMBF (Mean Miles Be-
tween Failure) of 1,894 for the total M113A1E1 vehicle
versus 870 for the standard M113A1 was attained during
30,000 miles of DT testing. During an additional 7,000
miles of OT tests, the reliability improvement was 860
MMBF for the M113A1E1 versus 660 for the M113A1. The
latter was accomplished without rebuild at 6,000 miles.

During performance tests, a marked improvement for
the M113A1E1 over the M113A1 was achieved: accelera-
tion (0-20 mph): 8.1 sec vs 11.7, a 30% improvement; brak-
ing from 20 mph: 24 ft vs 33 ft, a 27% improvement; cross-
country speed: 21 mph vs 16.3 mph, a 27% improvement;
and longitudinal slope speed: for 5 to 60% slope, a 26-43%
improvement.

In addition to improved performance characteristics, a
significant reduction in fuel consumption was achieved.
At 22 mph, the M113A1E1 had a 22% improvement over
the M113A1. This was verified by a 20% overall fuel sav-
ings in Development and Operational Tests when the ve-
hicles were operated under comparable conditions.

The improved power train in the M113A1E1 enhances
operational capability, increases combat effectiveness,
conserves energy and should reduce logistic support for
the M113 family of vehicles. Increased mobility reduces
hit probability, thus increasing survivability in combat.

When this improvement is funded, the M113A1E1 ve-
hicle (prototype designation to be changed to the
M113A3) will be a valuable addition to the M113 Family of
Vehicles - expected to last well into the year 2000. The
M113A3 should provide a suitable complement for both
the U.S. Army’s new XM1 and XM2 vehicles.

ANTHONY COMITO is weap-
on system manager for M113
Product Improvement Pro-
grams at the U.S. Army Tank
Automotive Research and, Devel-
opment Command, Warren, MI.

He has 16 years experience with-
in the U.S. tank automotive com-
munity on a variety of programs
that involve both tactical and
combat vehicles.

March- April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 5

By Martin B. Chase

An article entitled “ Soviet Tac-
tics for Overcoming NATO Anti-
Tank Defenses ,” appearing in a
1979 issue of International De-
fense Review, made the following
statement: “NATO’s capacity for
creating obstacles (using ex-
plosives and mines) is now vastly
increased. But most dangerous of
all, say Soviet tacticians, is the
enemy’s ability to deliver mines
remotely, right into the depths of
the attacking forces.” Since the
author, Mr. C. N. Donnelly, used
only Russian sources, the state-
ment takes on added meaning.

The United States Army has
been pursuing a program termed
FASCAM, an acronym for Family
of Scatterable Mines, for about a
decade. The Army’s FASCAM
program is managed by the De-
velopment Project Office (DPO)
for Selected Ammunition, U.S.
Army Armament R&D Command
(ARRADCOM), Dover, NJ.

FASCAM mines are probably
the very mines referred to in the
IDR article. And these were the
scatterable mines presented at
the International Barrier War-
fare Symposium this past June in
Washington by the ADPA and co-
chaired by ADPA and OSD.

Keynote speaker Ambassador
Robert W. Komer, then advisor to
the Secretary of Defense on
NATO affairs, recognized the
“revolution in mine warfare” and
that “the dynamic delivery of
mines on the battlefield via artil-
lery tube, rocket launcher, heli-
copter or aircraft offers opportu-
nities to lay mines right where we
already think the enemy is ap-
proaching.”

GEN Donn A. Starry, TRADOC
commander, recognized the value
of scatterable mines in the bar-
rier warfare role as a “relatively
cheap combat multiplier that can
enhance the effectiveness of oth-
er parts of the team . . . tanks, in-
fantry, fighting vehicles and the
artillery. Targets are destroyed,
delayed, disorganized, or better
yet, disrupted.”

Some of the other speakers who
strongly endorsed the Army’s

FASCAM program included Dr.
Walter B. LaBerge, then Under-
secretary of the Army; GEN
(USA, Ret.) William E. DePuy;
LTG (USA, Ret.) David E. Ott; BG
John Woodmansee of HQ TRA-
DOC, and Dr. Joseph Sperrazza,
then director of AMSAA.

Obviously, the Soviets are not
alone in their recognition of this
new capability to “deliver mines
remotely right into the depths of
the attacking forces.” This new
FASCAM, then, has resulted from
the addition of sophisticated elec-
tronics technology to the proven
submunitions capability of the
Army’s Improved Conventional
Munitions program.

Safe and arm sensor and preset
self-destruct capabilities, along
with countermeasure hardening
and anti-disturbance features,
have created a family of surface-
emplaced mines. These light-
weight, compact microelectronic
configurations, which can be pro-
duced economically on automated
equipment, are delivered by a
variety of systems including tube
artillery, rotary and fixed wing
aircraft, ground vehicles and
man-portable dispensers.

One member of this family is
RAAM, an acronym for Remote
Anti-Armor Mine (Fig. 1). RAAM
is a magnetically fused antiarmor
mine delivered by 155mm projec-
tiles. Nine cylindrical RAAM
mines are nested in one projec-
tile. When the projectile is fired,
the safe and arming mechanism
senses the forces associated with

setback and spin and subsequent
mine ejection from the projectile.
This provides proper mechanical
and electrical arming.

The mines are base-ejected
from the projectile and fall in pre-
dictable patterns as a function of
ejection height. Minefield density
becomes a function of weapon lay
and rounds fired.

After ground impact, the mine
is armed, electrically enabled and
ready to detonate upon sensing of
the proper vehicle signature by
the internal magnetometer. Each
mine has a built-in, factory-set
self-destruct capability which
clears the minefield.

The nine mines in the M718
projectile have long self-destruct
times, whereas the M741 contains
mines that have short self-de-
struct times. The kill mechanism
is a plate or P-charge. Two P-
charges are included per mine,
making terminal effects in-
sensitive to mine orientation.

This 5-pound mine provides
both belly and track kills against
known armored targets and it is
the basic antiarmor mine utilized
in the other delivery systems.
Once the mine has been devel-
oped and can operate in the vio-
lent environment associated with
tube artillery setback and angu-
lar acceleration, it is easier to
design the mine for less violent
conditions of ground, air and
rocker dispensing.

Another family member is the
ADAM, an acronym for Artillery-
Delivered Antipersonnel Mine or

March-April 1980

6 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

Area Denial Artillery Munition
(Fig. 2). It is a trip-line-aetuated
antipersonnel mine delivered by
155mm howitzer projectiles.
Thirty-six wedge-shaped mines
are nested in one projectile.

When the projectile is fired, the
sating and arming mechanism in
each mine senses the forces of
setback and spin. Upon mine ex-
pulsion from the carrier projec-
tile, the ejection force completes
the mine’s arming cycle. After
coming to rest on the ground, sev-
en trip line sensors are released
and the mine is fully armed.

Any small subsequent distur-
bance of a trip wire such that the
mine is moved slightly, or a break
of the wire at its weakest point
(where it meets the mine body),
initiates the detonation train.
When this occurs, a liquid propel-
lant surrounding the fragment-
ing sphere ignites, shattering the
plastic wedge body and propelling
the sphere upward.

A timing delay in the sphere
permits it to reach a pre-
determined height before it deto-
nates, sending hundreds of lethal
fragments out in a spherical pat-
tern at about 3,000 feet per second.

If the mine is not disturbed
during its active life, self-de-
struct occurs. The M692 projec-
tile contains mines with long self-
destruct times, whereas the M731
projectile has short-delay mines.

GEMSS, standing for Ground-
Emplaced Mine Scattering Sys-
tem, is another system designed
to provide rapid emplacement of
large prepared minefields in
friendly territory (Fig. 3). While
minefields of the same size can be
emplaced conventionally,
GEMSS is preferred because of
its faster emplacement rate and
lower manpower requirements.

GEMSS’ primary use is for mine-
field emplacement in screening
operations prior to attack or be-
hind the FEBA to support pre-
designated secondary defensive
positions. In this situation, lanes
must be provided for with-
drawing friendly units. The lanes
must be clearly marked, requir-
ing a high degree of emplacement
control and accuracy. GEMSS
can also be used to provide flank
protection or to impede the ene-
my along counter approaches.

March-April 1980

Fig. 3. Ground-Emplaced Mine Scattering System (GEMSS) Dispenser

GEMSS mines are deployed by
an XM128 mine dispenser
mounted on a towed M794 trailer.
Minefield density is controlled by
launch rate and vehicle speed.
The towing vehicle can be an
M548 tracked cargo carrier, an
Ml 13 series personnel carrier, or
heavy-duty truck.

Two types of mines are
launched using this system. One
is an antiarmor mine that is acti-
vated by magnetic influence. The
second is an antipersonnel mine
activated by trip lines.

The antipersonnel mines can be
effectively dispersed with the
antitank mines to protect the
minefield from clearance by ene-
my ground support troops. Both
types of mines have anti-
disturbance features and self-de-
struct times selectable at the in-
stance of mine dispersal.

Another system, the Gator
Mine System, is being developed
by the Air Force and Navy for in-
terdiction minefields beyond the
range of other delivery systems.
The GEMSS anti-armor and anti-
personnel mines are being adapt-
ed for use in the Gator system.

Mine delivery is achieved from
any aircraft capable of using free-
fall dispensers. The minimum al-
titude required is 200 feet and de-
livery speeds may go as high as
700 knots. A single sortie can de-
liver 600 Gator mines covering a
200-by-300 meter area.

Desired minefield density and
length are obtained by varying
the number of dispensers
dropped, the rate of release of
dispensers, and the aircraft re-

lease parameters. Delivery flexi-
bility yields a wide range of pat-
tern and density options to meet
specific mission requirements.

The antiarmor and anti-
personnel mines used in the Ga-
tor system are ballistically
matched, similar in appearance,
and feature a high degree of com-
monality in their respective sub-
systems. The main charge and
target sensor exhibit the greatest
degree of difference. Self-destruct
times are set at the dispenser.

Gator mines are designed to be
effective for interdiction of sec-
ond echelon forces in assembly
areas and columns. The unique
delivery system and functional
characteristics contribute sub-
stantially to the capability to re-
spond to combat support require-
ments. The purpose of these
minefields is to disrupt and dis-
organize enemy forces and to
deny the use of key areas.

The Modular Pack Mine Sys-
tem (MOPMS), is a man-portable
system (Fig. 4) designed for selec-
tive protection and smaller area

Fig. 4. Modular Pack Mine System
(MOPMS)

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

7

Fig. 5. Mine Dispensing Subsystem, Aircraft: M56

coverage. The MOPMS modules
are transported to the site by
truck, and emplaced by two men.

If no contact with enemy forces
is made or if there is no need to
fire the MOPMS modules, they
can be retrieved and re-used. If
enemy contact is made, the mod-
ules can be fired instantly by a
coded remote command to deploy
the mines. In a withdrawal, the
modules can be activated when
the friendly units pass.

Two types of mines can be em-
placed using MOPMS. One type is
the antiarmor mine, activated by
a magnetic influence. The other
type is an antipersonnel mine, ac-
tivated by trip lines, used to pro-
tect the antiarmor mines from
disturbance by enemy soldiers.

Additionally, there is the M56
mine (Fig. 5), a self-orienting heli-
copter-delivered blast mine that
can be rapidly emplaced with a
minimum of time and manpower.
Once armed, the M56 will deto-
nate if jarred, tilted or otherwise
moved, which prevents the ene-
my from neutralizing the mine by
hand. The M56 uses pressure-
time influences to detonate
against vehicles.

As with conventional mine-
fields, the M56 minefield is in-
tended to reinforce antiarmor
weapon systems. Because of a de-
livery system that is highly vul-
nerable to direct enemy fire, the
primary use is in friendly areas.

When a threat during a battle
becomes apparent, these mines
can be used to strengthen specific
battle positions in areas out of di-
rect enemy fire as part of an ob-
stacle plan. In a defensive situa-
tion, the M56 can blunt enemy
penetration or reinforce hasty de-
fensive positions. Offensive uses
include obstruction of enemy
counterattack routes, flank pro-
tection, and enemy containment
by blocking escape routes.

M56 mines are delivered from a
helicopter carrying two SUU-13
bomblet dispensers. The two dis-
pensers contain 80 canisters,
which hold two mines each for a
total of 160 mines. Dispensing
rate can be controlled by the pilot
to determine minefield density
and size. A typical minefield
made from a single helicopter
pass contains 160 mines in a 20 by

300-meter area. Self-destruction
is built into each M56 mine.

One of the great attractions of
all of these mines is their com-
monality. The electronic portions
of these mines can be assembled
on identical production equip-
ment with only minor changes for
the type of mine being consid-
ered. Automatic insertion ma-
chines provide rapid assembly
and greatly reduce the possibility
of error. The net benefit is a high-
ly versatile, reliable, low-cost
electronic package.

Reliable power sources that de-
mand no maintenance or power
consumption during extensive
periods of inactive storage
opened the door for the develop-
ment of electronic mines. Today,
mines contain ammonia and lith-
ium batteries that remain pas-
sive until the mine is delivered, at
which point the battery activates
to power the electronics.

A good contrast is the conven-
tional flashlight battery, or dry
cell, which is active from the time
of its manufacture. The passive
feature of ammonia and lithium
batteries gives them unlimited
shelf life and makes them ideal
for use in FASCAM mines.

These batteries are also ca-
pable of withstanding severe
launch environments — fired from
artillery, launched from a towed
dispenser, or air-dropped from
high-performance aircraft or
helicopters. Besides being du-
rable, these miniature batteries
trim down size and weight of to-
day’s mine to give it excellent de-
ployment versatility.

Although the safing and arm-
ing (S&A) mechanisms must
satisfy differing conditions of de-
ployment depending upon the de-
livery method, a number of parts
have been designed to be common
to more than one mine S&A
mechanism. For instance, the
electroexplosive device is com-
mon to all of the FASCAM mines.

MOPMS and Gator S&A mech-
anisms are identical, and many
of their parts are in the GEMSS
S&A mechanism. All FASCAM
antiarmor mines share a common
clearing charge design.

The four FASCAM anti-
personnel mines use trip lines to
detonate the submunition, and
substantial commonality exists
within these trip line designs.
ADAM mines contain a trip line
design that provides extended
range in MOPMS, GEMSS, and
Gator. The extended range de-
sign shares many common parts
with the ADAM trip line.

Although each individual mine
is designed to be used for a specif-
ic tactical situation, the sub-
assemblies for each mine have
been designed to incorporate as
many common parts and func-
tions as possible. The common-
ality concept began with RAAM
and ADAM programs, and con-
tinued to receive priority on
GEMSS, Gator and MOPMS.

When individual piece parts
can be used in more than one de-
sign, the results are savings in
production costs and improved
quality. Tooling costs are reduced
through commonality and can be
amortized over longer production

March-April 1980

8 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

runs. Near-common production
lines will produce all of the FAS-
CAM series, maximizing the effi-
ciency of procurement, assembly,
and test. The net result is maxi-
mum firepower at the lowest pos-
sible cost.

The role of the main charge for
an antipersonnel mine is the
same no matter how the mine is
deployed. The main charge of an
antiarmor mine also has the
same tasks, regardless of the
method of deployment. There-
fore, each mine type has a com-
mon main charge.

The overall status of these ele-
ments is as follows: The M56 heli-
copter-delivered blast mine has
been deployed in Europe since
1977. 155mm ADAM and RAAM
projectiles are in production,
with deployment expected late in
1980. GEMSS is completing its de-
velopment cycle with standard-
ization expected in March 1980.

Gator is behind GEMSS with
standardization scheduled for late
1981, MOPMS for mid-1982.

In summary, the accelerated
pace of modern warfare limits the
time and manpower available for
conventional mine placement and
clearing. This has created a de-
mand for radical changes to take
advantage of the inherent and
proven effectiveness of mines.

The Army has responded to

this unique challenge by creating
FASCAM, a family of antiarmor
and antipersonnel scatterable
mines, with a variety of emplace-
ment capabilities through artil-
lery, air and special purpose
ground and vehicle delivery.

FASCAM can now be used as
offensive weapons in addition to
their classical defensive role, thus
creating a new dimension in
ground warfare.

MARTIN B. CHASE is chief of the Concepts,
Plans and Analysis Division of the Development
Project Office for Selected Ammunition, formerly
the Office of the Project Manager for Selected Am-
munition, U.S. Army Armament Research and De-
velopment Command. His academic credentials in-
clude a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering
from the Neiv Jersey Institute of Technology and
graduate studies in industrial engineering at Ohio
State University and Stevens Institute of Tech-
nology.

Atlanta VI: A New Sense of Urgency

( Continued from page U)

(R&D), and now vice president,
Technical Operations, Martin
Marietta. Panel members includ-
ed Messrs. Stark, Westermann,
and Ryan, and MGs Eicher, Deck-
er, and Stoner.

Speaking for the workshop or
quality and reliability, Stark
noted the group agreed that
there were some disturbing signs,
i.e., lack of pride workmanship,
underestimating R&D by con-
tractors, etc. But the government
too, has to accept its share of re-
sponsibility by requiring greater
attention to these standards.

Testing, Stark continued, was a
contributor, because it was not
realistic or comprehensive
enough. The stressed environ-
ment was lacking.

The solutions proposed by the
workshop included incorporating
recognition of these standards
early in the game, and providing
a better formal feedback mecha-
nism from tests.

As spokesmen for the workshop
on acquisition/procurement/con-
tracting function, Westermann
said the group believed greater
articulation about these prob-
lems, at the local level and to Con-
gressmen and their staffs, would

assist in the solution. The acqui-
sition process was desirable from
a policy point of view, but it was
not in tune with the realities of
practice. Greater judgment
should be permitted, and the sys-
tem should not try to eliminate
every error made in every past
program. The process should
match the individual case.

Summing up for the workshop
on the mobilization base, Ryan
noted that the industrial base
clearly cannot respond today. He
said the group recognized the
need to have an inventory base
large enough to allow survival
until the full capacity was
brought on line. U.S. doctrine, he
said, has fostered a short war phi-
losophy, but forgot to provide for
a longer one.

Following these presentations,
there was a healthy exchange of
questions and views from the
floor and the panel members
which were probably equally as
beneficial as the presentations.

The final portion saw the Army
provide a very high level panel
for the purpose of allowing indus-
try to ask questions and get an-
swers from Army policy level offi-
cials. Members included: Hon.
Percy A. Pierre, Assistant Secre-

tary of the Army (RDA); GEN
John R. Guthrie, DARCOM com-
mander; GEN R. M. Shoemaker,
FORSCOM commander; and LTG
W. R. Richardson, deputy com-
mander of TRADOC.

Again the informal frank ex-
changes that occurred in this
question and answer session,
were no doubt of equal value with
the prepared portions, enhancing
GEN Guthrie’s goal of providing
a better “feedback” to the Army
of industry’s views, problems,
and suggestions.

In closing out the meeting GEN
Guthrie noted that he felt there
was a new sense of needed urgen-
cy— something not present in the
previous sessions he’d attended.
There was a new awareness of
the critical importance of the
vendor, the subcontractor in the
materiel process, and the atro-
phied status of these suppliers
ability and willingness to meet an
expanding industrial mobiliza-
tion base.

The Army recognizes, said
Guthrie, the problem of capital
outlays for plants, tools, and that
there has been a lack of a nation-
al industrial mobilization policy.
He would be supporting efforts to
attain such a policy.

March-April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 9

TANK CREW TUPbllkllC^

TABLE 1

Tank Gunnery Performance as a
Function of Group Assignment

& Equipment Equipment, Training
Turbulence & Position

Turbulence

TABLE 2

Percentage of Respondents Experiencing Types of Turbulence

Type

of Turbulence

Crew

Position

No

Required

Other

Tank commander

45% (22)*

24% (12)

31% (15)

Gunner

31% (16)

47% (24)

22% (11)

Driver

55% (24)

16% ( 7)

30% (13)

Loader

62% (26)

29% (12)

10% ( 4)

Average

48%

29%

23%

* Numbers in parentheses indicate number of respondents in the category.

By Newell Eaton & Barbara Black

The U.S. Army has long been
concerned with getting the maxi-
mum capabilities and effective-
ness out of its armor weapon
systems. Much of the capability
of any weapon system is a func-
tion of the performance of the
crewmen assigned. Some people
in the armor community have
expressed concern that crew
turbulence — the movement of
crewmen from crew to crew, and
position to position — may have
a negative impact on tank system
effectiveness. Research conducted
during recent years has addressed
this notion and attempted to
identify the relationship between
tank crew turbulence and tank
crew performance.

Tank crews contain four crew-
men, a tank commander — com-
monly called a “TC,” a gunner, a
driver, and a loader. For the tank
weapon system to achieve full po-
tential, each must perform ef-
fectively in his assigned position.

Each duty position within the
tank system requires unique
skills and smooth coordination
with the other crew members.
The TC must identify and range
on targets, communicate his find-
ings to the gunner and loader,
and be prepared to guide the driv-
er through difficult terrain based
solely on voice commands.

The gunner’s response to the
TC’s identification of a target
must be coordinated with the
loader’s response to the TC’s com-
mand specifying the type of am-
munition to be loaded. The accu-
rate synchronization of these
duties is essential.

Three factors contributing to
the maximization of crew per-
formance include the ability of
each individual to perform his as-
signed duties, the effectiveness of
the communication among crew
members, and the psychological
cohesiveness of the crew.

The U.S. Army Research Insti-
tute for the Behavioral and So-
cial Sciences (ARI) began re-
search in 1977 to determine the
extent of tank crew turbulence,
the effects of turbulence on crew

performance, and methods to
combat any degrading effects of
turbulence. That same year, the
Tank Force Management Group,
headed by retired LTG Kalergis,
identified turbulence as a consis-
tent problem that degraded com-
bat readiness.

ARI research began with ad-
ministration of a turbulence
questionnaire to 211 tank crews
in an armored division in Europe.
The results revealed considerable
turbulence. While typical tank
commander, gunners, drivers,
and loaders had held their posi-
tions for periods of time varying
from 12 to 42, 5 to 12, 5 to 9, and 2
to 6 months respectively, whole
crews had normally been as-

signed together only 1 to 2
months. These findings were con-
sistent with a study by TCATA in
1976, and the Defense Science
Board in 1975.

Further results of this research
indicated that gunnery perform-
ance on the tank crew qualifica-
tion course at Grafenwohr, GE,
was related to the time tank com-
manders and gunners had been
in their crew positions. Specifical-
ly, the longer a gunner had
trained as a gunner, the more
targets his tank hit. The longer
the TC had been assigned to his
position, the more rapidly the
crew opened fire. There was also
a slight indication that the
amount of time a TC and gunner

10 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE March-April 1980

had trained together was related
to opening time.

These results helped shed light
on the effects of three types of
turbulence: equipment, person-
nel, and position turbulence.
Equipment turbulence occurs
when a crew is moved from one
tank to another. Personnel turbu-
lence occurs when crewmen are
moved from one crew to another,
but kept in their positions. And
position turbulence occurs when
crewmen are moved from one po-
sition to another. Assignment
changes which create personnel
and position turbulence are al-
ways accompanied by equipment
turbulence.

From the data, it appeared that
position turbulence had a signifi-
cant degrading effect on gunnery
performance. Specifically, for
tank commanders and gunners,
time in position was related to
gunnery performance. However,
for equipment and personnel tur-
bulence, little or no effect was in-
dicated.

These findings led to an experi-
ment at Fort Carson, CO, in 1978.
The purpose was to clarify the ef-
fects of the various types of tur-
bulence on tank gunnery per-
formance. Initially, three groups
of crews were assigned to assess
turbulence effects. The three
were a no-turbulence baseline, a
group with equipment and per-
sonnel turbulence, and a group
with equipment, personnel, and
position turbulence.

In the first group, crews were
allowed to remain intact on their
assigned tank. For the second
group, crewmen were assigned to
the same crew position in dif-
ferent crews and different tanks.
To produce three types of turbu-
lence in group three, loaders were
assigned as gunners and gunners
as TCs, then all crewmen were as-
signed to different crews and dif-
ferent tanks.

The gunnery performance of all
crews was measured on the Fort
Carson Tank Crew Qualification
Course. The results are shown in
Table 1 in terms of total points,
a composite based on day and
night targets hit and time-to-fire.

Neither equipment nor person-
nel turbulence degraded perform-
ance as compared to the no-tur-

bulence baseline. The slight supe-
riority of the second group is best
attributed to random chance. The
third group — those experiencing
equipment, personnel, and posi-
tion turbulence, performed sig-
nificantly worse than their coun-
terparts. Because no effect was
observed for the equipment and
personnel turbulence group, the
inferior performance of the third
group is best attributed to the im-
posed position turbulence, i.e.,
changing the gunner to TC and
the loader to gunner.

Thus, the detrimental effect of
position turbulence indicated in
the original questionnaire data
was supported by this experi-
ment. Further, the lack of effect
for equipment and personnel tur-
bulence was also confirmed.

In the event of a crisis situation
where untrained personnel might
be required to man tanks, posi-
tion turbulence could produce se-
rious performance decrements.
Because inadequate cross-train-
ing was suspected as one cause of
the performance decrements as-
sociated with position turbulence,
a short, intensive cross-training
program was developed to supply
critical skills.

To evaluate this program, a
fourth group was included in the
Fort Carson experiment. Non-ar-
mor crewmen were chosen to par-
ticipate in a 3-day cross-training
program in gunner and loader
duties for gunnery. They were
trained by, and tested with, regu-
lar armor TCs and drivers.

As indicated in Table 1, the
performance of the cross-training
group was quite similar to the
regular crews. Thus, for the skills
required for the Fort Carson gun-
nery qualification course, the
cross-training program seemed to
provide an answer to loader and
gunner position turbulence prob-
lems. Of course, for other gunner
and loader duties, such as main-
tenance functions, additional
training would be required.

In the most recent research on
tank crew turbulence, research-
ers returned to Europe in 1979 to
administer questionnaires and
conduct interviews in 18 battal-
ions. Key personnel — battalion
and company commanders, and
platoon leaders and sergeants—

were asked to describe their be-
liefs about the extent of turbu-
lence in their units and the ef-
fects of turbulence on mainte-
nance and training. Then they
were asked for specific informa-
tion about assignment — how long
crewmen had served in their
crews and duty positions, and how
they performed in gunnery.

Key personnel reported that
personnel turbulence had a de-
grading effect on training and
maintenance. They disagreed on
the effects of position turbulence.
Battalion and company com-
manders believed position turbu-
lence degraded training. This was
consistent with previous ques-
tionnaire and experimental find-
ings. Platoon leaders and ser-
geants, on the other hand, said
position turbulence improved
training. Interviews with these
personnel revealed that they at-
tributed this improvement to
cross-training.

Next we looked at crew assign-
ment, and found typical crews
were assigned together 1 to 5
months. These data, taken to-
gether with the 1977 question-
naire responses and the results
from previous studies, suggest
that crew turbulence is relatively
constant across time. The key
personnel described the extent of
turbulence as moderate, which
indicates that this degree of tur-
bulence has come to be expected.

When we related crew assign-
ment to performance, we found
that the time a crew had been to-
gether (i.e., personnel turbu-
lence) had no effect on individual
tank crew qualification. Further,
personnel turbulence had no ef-
fect on platoon qualification.
These findings were consistent
with previous questionnaire and
experimental results, but not
with the beliefs of the key person-
nel, perhaps due to the limited
scope of the performance mea-
surements compared to the
broader view of training and main-
tenance held by key personnel.

Finally we turned our atten-
tion to crew assignment prac-
tices, where three basic types
were identified. All types of tur-
bulence could be minimized if it
were possible to assign each
crewman to a permanent posi-

March- April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 11

tion, tank, and crew upon his ar-
rival in the unit. However, this
ideal procedure is often not fea-
sible, because a sufficient number
of trained TC and gunner replace-
ments are not always available to
fill vacated positions. Con-
sequently, units must fill TC and
gunner positions from available
crewmen. To cope with the turbu-
lence required by the assignment
system, a unit may frequently
move crew members up within
crews, where possible, or between
crews where necessary.

In the third type of assignment
procedure, crewmen are moved
from one crew to another, and lat-
er change position, or from one
position to another, and later
change crews. This practice is the
least preferable with respect to
controlling turbulence. However,
such multiple changes may occa-
sionally be justified for discipli-
nary reasons, mission require-
ments, or the elimination of per-
sonality conflicts.

To evaluate the extent of these
three types of assignment prac-
tice, data were gathered on a
sample of the tank crewmen in
the 18 battalions in Europe to de-
termine the number of instances
of no turbulence, required turbu-
lence, and other turbulence. The
results are shown in Table 2.
Across all crewmen observed,
half had experienced no turbu-
lence since they had been in the
company, more than a quarter
had experienced turbulence re-
quired by a change in position,
and less than a quarter had expe-
rienced other turbulence with
multiple changes.

Evaluation of the data from
units that had undergone tank
crew qualification during the
three months prior to the ques-
tionnaire administration in-
dicated a higher percentage of
personnel experienced no turbu-
lence and fewer crews experi-
enced multiple changes than in
units which had qualified more
than three months before. Over-
all, these results indicate that
key unit personnel are successful
in coping with the flow of per-
sonnel through their units.

The low level of multiple
change turbulence observed in
the battalions was apparently

due to the concern which key per-
sonnel expressed for problems
caused by turbulence. Interviews
were conducted with personnel in
180 key positions across the 18
battalions. About one half said
they had made increased efforts
not to transfer personnel within
companies, by requiring battal-
ion, company or platoon approval
for all crew changes. About one-
third of the respondents stated
that they monitored all crew
changes. Less than one-fifth re-
ported taking no action to control
turbulence.

In summary, turnover in per-
sonnel has been, and continues to
be, a fact of life in tank crews.
Crews that have been together
more than six months are rela-
tively rare. Thus, the importance
of procedures used to effectively
minimize turbulence should not
be underestimated. To bring
about a significant reduction in
turbulence necessitates the coop-
eration of various command lev-
els, an understanding of the prob-
lems generated by turbulent con-
ditions, and adherence to
preferred methods of crew mem-
ber assignment.

Fortunately, available infor-
mation indicates that in opera-
tional units during the past three
years, turbulence has little effect
on measured performance. Pla-
toon NCOs and officers even see
some positive effects when turbu-
lence is manipulated advanta-
geously, such as to provide cross-
training for crewmen. Turbu-
lence has been shown to strongly
affect crew performance only un-
der the most severe conditions,

like those induced experimental-
ly in the Fort Carson research.
There the cause was attributed to
inadequate cross-training for the
TC and gunner, to which gunners
and loaders were assigned.

As a result, this research by the
U.S. Army Research Institute
has provided command personnel
with the information necessary
to evaluate the level of turbu-
lence within their units, to recog-
nize turbulence generated prob-
lems, and to minimize the turbu-
lence created by replacement
practices within their units.

It has also brought the prob-
lems of turbulence to the atten-
tion of equipment design engi-
neers and human factors special-
ists. These individuals should be
aware of the problems encoun-
tered with personnel changes in
operational units and strive to
maintain continuity across duty
positions in order to facilitate
cross-training.

ARI’s continuing efforts are di-
rected toward methods to mini-
mize the effects of turbulence in-
herent in the personnel system.
For this purpose ARI has devel-
oped two new training programs.
The first is a tank crewman skills
training program developed to fa-
cilitate cross-training of crewmen
within operational units. The sec-
ond is a crew drills package de-
signed to standardize communi-
cation among crewmembers and
thus reduce the problems new
crewmen might encounter. ARI’s
future efforts in the area of tank
crew turbulence will include the
implementation and evaluation
of these new training packages.

NEWELL K. EATON is a re-
search psychologist and, team
chief with the Army Research
Institute-Fort Knox Field Unit.
Since completing a doctorate in
psychology at the University of
Oregon Health Sciences Center
in 1975, he has been engaged in
performance motivation and
personnel assignment research.

BARBARA A. BLACK is also
a research psychologist with the
Army Research Institute-Fort
Knox Field Unit. She recently
completed a doctorate in psy-
chology at Baylor University
and is presently conducting re-
search in armor personnel selec-
tion and assignment.

12 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

March-April 1980

The Case for an Automated Acquisition Handbook

By Gerald Malakoff and David B. Scott Jr.

GERALD MALAKOFF is techni-
cal assistant to chief, Counter Intru-
sion Laboratory , U.S. Army Mobil-
ity Equipment Research and Devel-
opment Command, Fort Belvoir, VA.
He received his BS in electronic en-
gineering from the University of
Arizona in 1958. He has been in-
volved with R&D and/or logistics
throughout his professional career.

DAVID B. SCOTT JR. is chief,
Systems Technology and Manage-
ment Division of the Management
Information Systems Directorate at
the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment
Research and Development Com-
mand, Fort Belvoir, VA. He has over
14 years experience in all facets of
computer applications.

A project engineer starts his job
with one hand tied behind his back
and the U.S. Army Mobility Equip-
ment R&D Command is trying to do
something about it.

When an engineer is assigned a
new project he is, theoretically at
least, with it through the entire ac-
quisition process, from exploration of
alternative concepts to deployment.
He is responsible for hundreds of ma-
jor events and milestones over a peri-
od of seven to nine years.

It is no surprise that he learns too
late about missing essential require-
ments. He often overlooks subtle in-
terrelationships that result in sched-
ule slips, test deficiencies, redesign,
cost overruns and inadequate logistic
support.

The majority of individual actions
that should be performed during the
acquisition of a new piece of equip-
ment can be performed quite easily,
especially by an intelligent, well edu-
cated, trained individual. However,
when the total effort is viewed collec-
tively, the task becomes exceedingly
difficult.

Existing guidance in the form of
regulations, supplements, circulars
and handbooks is voluminous, con-
tradictory, vague, confusing and in
the end — exasperating.

The problem is compounded be-
cause the project engineer, after
being on a project for a number of
years, is working on the tail end of
the acquisition cycle, prior to being
assigned to a new project effort that
is just starting out at the beginning
of the acquisition cycle. When one
considers the large number of sepa-
rate efforts during the total acquisi-
tion cycle, the lengthy time frame in-
volved and the high probability of
change in requirements to the earlier
activities, it is not surprising his ex-
perience has limited application to a
new project.

Any acquisition project, whether
it’s a small hardware end item or a
major system consisting of many sub-
systems, must address the same tech-
nical management factors. The es-
sential difference is the depth of ef-
fort.

In order to improve the current
modus operandi, a manager needs
two tools. First, he needs an auto-
mated project management and
tracking system to assist in planning,

March-April 1980

scheduling and controlling individual
project, laboratory and command ef-
forts.

An automated management sys-
tem would increase productivity and
prevent the need for fighting con-
stant “brush fires.” With this system,
the user could maintain current in-
formation on all projects to ef-
fectively track milestones and locate
problem areas.

Automated project management
systems and resource allocation mod-
els could be applied in a life cycle
management automation effort. With
such a tool at his disposal, the man-
ager could maintain a data base of in-
formation about project activities,
milestones, critical paths, available
resources, scheduled resources, re-
sources expended to date, etc.

He could also have a flexible report
writing capability to allow the user to
specify simple query strings to an-
swer a question and to specify de-
tailed, periodic reports. The user
could easily specify a report format
that clearly presents information.

These systems could provide the
unique capability to assign and con-
strain resources such as manhours,
percent effort, dollars, time, etc. It
would also be possible to simulate ef-
fects of the constraints.

The manager could then truly man-
age his resources and get a clear pic-
ture of direct and indirect effects of
his actions on the entire project.

Another possible output would be a
graphical representation of the proj-
ect showing all events and resource
costs in a network model. The model
would clearly depict milestones,

dates, resource costs and interaction
points of a large project.

The entire chart could be plotted
for viewing on the wall. A snapshot of
a day or week could also be plotted in-
stantaneously at an interactive com-
puter graphics terminal for data
checking, correction, review by man-
agement, or assignment to project
engineers.

Intelligent application of this tool
would result in improved interface
with internal and external support
activities and greater assurance of
better products.

Second, the project manager also
needs a single document that ties to-
gether all the elements of system ac-
quisition. Such a handbook would not
only identify elements of the auto-
mated management tracking system,
but would also detail the what,
where, why, when and how of all the
events or actions that should be con-
sidered.

Many attempts have been made at
documenting a “Life Cycle Manage-
ment” approach. Results were usual-
ly brief descriptions of events, gener-
al references for responsibility, and a
listing of broad reference categories.

The fatal flaw in this type of ap-
proach is that individual actions, al-
though simple in themselves, become
complex and incomprehensible when
combined into a total materiel acqui-
sition requirement.

A materiel developer needs a com-
prehensive, current, and detailed
handbook that separates ail this in-
formation into segments small
enough for use by an individual in a
practical manner.

( Concluded on page 15)

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 13

By Dr. Charles Anderson

Throughout most of the last dec-
ade, researchers at the U.S. Army
Armament R&D Command’s Ballis-
tic Research Laboratory (BRL) have
been putting their technology and
skills to work for the nation’s rail-
roads.

A rash of railway accidents in-
volving tank cars carrying flam-
mable materials such as propane and
vinyl chloride prompted an investiga-
tion in the late sixties by the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), an
arm of the Department of Transpor-
tation.

Because of BRL’s knowledge in fire
technology as well as unique skills in
high temperature measurements,
the FRA sought out that agency for
assistance in investigations of train
wrecks and derailments.

BRL’s capabilities in large scale
field testing and precise technology
in instrumentation made it an ideal
research activity to initiate a rail-
road safety project. By 1973, testing
of both bare and insulated one-fifth
size tank car models was underway
at the Army’s White Sands Missile
Range in New Mexico.

Initial tests led to full-scale pool
fire tests on two 33,000 gallon tank
cars. These cars, except for a few
changes to facilitate instrumenta-
tion, were just like the 22,000 other
DOT 112A/114A tank cars in use.

For the first test, a bare car was
placed in a pit, instrumented and
filled with approximately 30,000 gal-
lons of propane. The car was then
completely engulfed in flames (JP-4
jet fuel was used to provide the
source of the fire.)

After 24.5 minutes of fire exposure,
the tank violently ruptured, spewing
fire and debris considerable dis-
tances. Pieces of the car were hurled
as far as V-j-mile and the tank cylin-
der was completely “ripped” to
pieces.

Armed with the data from the test,
post-test analyses of the fragments,
metallurgical analyses, etc., the
mechanism of failure was understood
and documented.

Propane and vinyl chloride are
shipped under pressure in the liquid
form. In a fire environment, heat is
transferred to the interior of the car.
The temperature of the contents is
raised and the pressure increases.
Above a specified pressure, the relief
valve opens and vents, but the pres-

DR. CHARLES ANDERSON, a physicist at the
Ballistic Research Laboratory , heads a research pro-
gram, initiated by the Department of Transportation
in 1973, to investigate the origins of cataclysmic ex-
plosions. He and his associates were instrumental in
the preparation of a federal material transportation
hazardous materials regulation. Anderson authored
the crucial thermal criteria portion of the new law.

sure will continue to climb if the total
heat to the interior is great enough.

In addition, the steel tank shell is
heated, particularly that portion
which is not in contact with the liq-
uid. As the metal heats, its strength
begins to degrade, especially where
metal temperatures are in excess of
800° F.

If exposed to the fire long enough,
the interior pressure exceeds the
strength of the temperature-weak-
ened steel. A sudden release of the
pressurized contents then occurs.

The remaining contents (propane,
etc.) suddenly vaporizes, mixes with
air, and an explosion occurs. This
fuel/air explosion can “rocket” por-
tions of a tank car for considerable
distances.

A second tank car was tested in De-
cember 1974. This car was exactly
like the first car except that one-
eighth inch of a spray-on insulation
coated the car. The car survived 94.5
minutes of fire exposure before rup-
ture.

The car contained only about 10
percent of its loaded propane at rup-
ture. The rest had vented through
the relief valve. The bare was about
half-full at rupture. The coated car
ruptured into only two fragments
and two cylindrical tubs, as opposed
to 63 pieces of mangled metal in the
first test.

It was demonstrated that by pro-
tecting the metal skin from reaching
elevated temperatures, the car would
retain its integrity while releasing its
contents through the relief valve un-
til the car was essentially empty. Al-
so, the rupture, if indeed it did rup-
ture, would be significantly less vio-
lent. However, that was not the
complete story.

Accident investigations showed
that a significant percentage of rup-
tures, where there was a reliable esti-
mate for the time, occurred in less
than 24.5 minutes. Yet, full-scale
testing of the bare car was a full en-
gulfment pool fire — a “worst-case”

test. Hence, another mechanism was
contributing to tank car failures —
the “torch” mechanism.

A torch can result from ignited liq-
uid and/or vapor rushing out of a hole
or tear in the shell. This could be
caused by a coupler impact in an acci-
dent, or possibly effluent from a relief
valve on an overturned car imping-
ing on an adjacent car.

Remembering that the contents
are already under pressure, and that
any additional heat from a fire would
raise the internal pressure, the ig-
nited, high velocity stream acts as a
large blowtorch. Higher heat flux
from the torch can heat the impinged
steel to dangerously high temper-
atures in only five minutes.

To investigate this phenomenon,
the BRL designed, constructed, and
operates a torch simulator facility at
the DOT Test Center in Pueblo, CO. A
BRL team tested the thermal re-
sponse of steel plates, the same thick-
ness as the shell of a tank car.

Bare and thermally protective
plates have been tested. Thermal
protective systems are of two basic
types: a spray-on coating typically
one-quarter to one-half-inch thick,
depending upon the insulating abili-
ty of the material; a jacket or sand-
wich system.

The jacket type consists of one inch
of a mineral or ceramic insulation
covering. It is sandwiched between
the tank car and a one-eighth-ineh
steel jacket. Each system has its ad-
vantages. It is up to the user to de-
cide which meets his needs.

Torch tests were also conducted on
full size tank cars, both bare and in-
sulated, to insure that the plate re-
sults were valid. Good correlation
was obtained.

After this research effort, a federal
regulation was written. It requires
that all DOT type 112A/114A tank
cars carrying flammable commodities
such as propane, vinyl chloride, etc.,
be retrofitted with a thermal pro-
tective system.

14 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

March-April 1980

Rather unique was the fact that
the regulation specified performance
criteria as opposed to design criteria.
In the past, regulations normally
specified the material, design, con-
struction, etc. No room was left for in-
novation or improvement.

The present “reg” specifies the
minimum thermal criteria of the in-
sulating system. Any potential sup-
plier or manufacturer simply submits
his candidate insulation system to
the Transportation Test Center for
testing by BRL.

If the candidate system meets the
thermal criteria, then it can be used
on the tank cars. Thus, the perform-
ance criteria encourages innovation
in the industrial community. This en-
hances competition and the develop-
ment of better and cheaper systems.

Besides the thermal criteria, two
other performance criteria were
specified in the regulation, issued in
October 1978. E-shelf couplers were
designed to prevent the car’s coupler
from uncoupling in a vertical or up-
ward direction.

Additionally, in the event of cou-
pler override, head shields, which

The Case for an

( Continued from page 13)

A project engineer assigned to a
new program must plan many hun-
dreds of actions. He may be brilliant
in certain areas but uninformed in
others. Staff elements should provide
that missing expertise, but often the
staff is undersized or loses a key man.

Frequent manpower reductions
are making understaffing a way of
life and increasing productivity a ne-
cessity. Unessential actions must be
eliminated.

A Materiel Acquisition Handbook
should be a comprehensive reference
source containing a brief description
of each action and who is responsible;
a list of contributing groups; and pre-
cise references for further informa-
tion. It should also be associated with
an automated tracking data system.

The U.S. Army Mobility Equip-
ment R&D Command is currently de-
veloping such a Life Cycle Manage-
ment Model. It will be followed by an
expanded handbook that will provide
information to simplify tailoring of
individual project models.

The authors suggest that the fol-
low-on detail include such informa-
tion as: The action impact on inter-
related events; Constraints caused
by other actions; How to make up for
actions not included; Criteria for ac-

March-April 1980

protect the ends of the tank car, must
be added to prevent puncture of the
tank shell. The head shield averts
puncture, shell perforation, and
spilled contents.

In conjunction with this program,
the BRL has managed environmen-
tal and accelerated life testing of the
insulation systems. These included
cycling of coated systems in various
combinations of high and cold tem-
peratures, and high and low humidi-
ties.

Accelerated life testing was also
conducted where insulated tank cars
accumulated 10 years equivalent
mileage and coupler impacts in ap-
proximately 18 months. Impact test-
ing is also being investigated to de-
termine the susceptibility of the in-
sulating system to direct and
glancing impacts such as in a derail-
ment.

The BRL has assisted in making
the rail transport of hazardous mate-
rials safer. A solution was found that
was technically and economically fea-
sible. The solution permits a retrofit
of the existing tank car fleet. It also
allows new tank cars to be easily

built to the performance specifica-
tions.

Finally, the solution is being imple-
mented in a reasonable time frame
since it provides for the use of “off-
the-shelf,” commercially available
systems. The retrofit program is now
beginning the final year of a 3-year
program.

Train accidents, with fires, have re-
cently involved the newly insulated
cars — and the insulating systems
work, precluding rupture and a pos-
sible chain reaction sequence of rup-
tures!

Several BRL scientists have pro-
vided many significant contributions
to the development and direction of
this railroad safety project. One is Mr.
Thomas Jeter, a BRL physicist and
assistant branch chief, who directs all
field testing and manages preparation
of instrumentation packages.

Another significant contributor is
Mr. Edward Baicy, chief of the Frag-
mentation Branch in BRL's Terminal
Ballistics Division. He provides key
leadership and technical know-how in
the development and success of the
railroad tank car testing program.

Automated Acquisition Handbook

tion; What action from a particular
phase must be accomplished if that
phase is skipped; and Typical time
and skills required for the task.

Three shortcomings exist with a
manually prepared handbook. Much
of it will rapidly become outdated, its
large size tends to discourage use for
some applications, and its use is lim-
ited by the single format of being a
hard copy document.

Computer technology provides the
tools to overcome these problems.
Computers are marvelous manage-
ment tools that are all too often mis-
used to produce reams of unused
data. On the other extreme, many or-
ganizations fail to streamline their
operation because they don’t use
computer technology to increase pro-
ductivity.

Today’s computer technology will
allow the Materiel Acquisition Hand-
book to be integrated with an ADP
system to provide: narrative update
of the handbook on a near real time
basis; automated searching to locate
sections that bear on a problem; and
dissemination of the handbook by
electronic media rather than hard
copy.

Additionally, it would provide user
defined report writing and graphing
to produce reports on a section of the
handbook, portions of the Life Cycle

Networks or other pertinent informa-
tion; data validity checking; and his-
torical analysis.

The handbook would be centrally
maintained (one master copy). How-
ever, it could be accessed and up-
dated by multiple users at remote
sites. The automated handbook
would truly reflect current data criti-
cal to making good decisions.

It is no sin to make a project engi-
neer’s job easier. We do not need to
test his intelligence by making his
work more complex. Even with an
easy to read road map, he still must
decide which route to take.

Moving — Being Transferred?

To ensure continued receipt of the maga-
zine, persons, both Active and Reserve, who
are authorized individual copies, should give
timely notice of their new address. Instructions
on where to send address corrections are
given on the inside of the front cover. DO
NOT SEND CORRECTIONS to the magazine edi-
torial office, as mailing labels are provided
the magazine by the agencies mentioned in
the instructions. Changes of address must be
given to your duty station military personnel
office. Regulations also require that you re2
ceive the magazine at your duty station address,
not your home.

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 15

18.41 m (60.41 It )

• INSIDE WAIL - THERMOCOUPLES

0 OUTSIDE FIRE - THERMOCOUPLES

1 GRID - THERMOCOUPLES
0 DOME - THERMOCOUPLES

O INSTRUMENTATION FLANGE
■ PRESSURE GAUGE

mm thermister gauge
e&e- resistance gauge
S-M*- WIRE GAUGE

0 STANDARD RELIEF VALVE

AAJk SAFETY VALVE - LOUISIANA TECH

1 FILL AND EXHAUST VALVE

meters

Instrumental ion Layout for RAX 201 and RAX 202

flfl'S1

Two railroad tank
gallons of LPG and
fire. The cars were
left) and appropric
were measured (e.g
the upper left corn
car; it survived 24.1
tured-the fragmen
right corner.

\

A second car waste:
thermal insulation (p
vived 94.5 minutes Ip-
fragments are shovji
entire program is aiv
or delaying the rut
(center photo — ruptr

March-April 1980

i.road Safety
jm Technology

3 loaded with 33,000
bcted to large pool
strumented (center-
hysical parameters
nter-right). The car in
as a standard tank
i lutes before it rup-
i shown in the upper

h

ted with 0.32cm of
r left corner). It sur-
9 rupture -"the lub"
the lower right. The
at preventing and/
of LPG tank cars
f insulated car).

March-April 1980

.n

4/ JLm

Pressure vs. Time

PRESSURE ( >0* nr/«r>2)

ADPA Sponsors Seminar on Army Requirements

Operational and technological
considerations relative to devel-
opment of concepts and require-
ments for future Army weapon
systems were reviewed by more
than 400 U.S. and allied military
and industrial representatives, 9-
10 January, during an “execu-
tive” seminar at the Armed
F orces Staff College, Norfolk, VA.

Sponsored by the American De-
fense Preparedness Association,
the Secret meeting was designed
to promote discussion of complex
problems and potential solutions,
and to articulate industry roles
and opportunities associated
with the next generation of
NATO requirements.

MG L. Gordon Hill, commandant of
the Armed Forces Staff College
(AFSC) opened the meeting with
welcoming remarks and a fast-paced
review of the AFSC. He then intro-
duced GEN Henry A. Miley Jr. (USA,
Ret.), president of the American De-
fense Preparedness Association.

Miley noted that this meeting rep-
resented a long-held dream of his. He
stated that the Army must do a bet-
ter job in letting industry know what
it needs. The central question, he
added, is “How can the Army and in-
dustry work together to produce a
better combat capability?”

Mr. Edward A. Miller, general
chairman of the seminar, vice presi-
dent, Engineering, Federal Systems
Group, Sanders Associates, and
chairman of ADPA’s Concepts and
Requirements Division, gave an in-
troductory statement. He said that
there is now a sense of urgency in na-
tional defense.

He stressed that there is a need for
a stronger technological/industrial
base. Not enough attention is being
given to economic realities associated
with NATO. He also said that defense
budgets must be increased.

Deputy Commander of the U.S. Ar-
my Training and Doctrine Command
LTG William R. Richardson began
the formal presentations with a clas-
sified keynote address on battlefield
forces and opportunities and require-
ments for new technology.

The General noted that there is a
qualitative and quantitative inferi-
ority in some U.S. fielded systems. He
stated, however, that the U.S. is
ahead of the Soviets in certain speci-
fied technological areas. In a classi-

fied portion of his address he touched
on the assets and liabilities of the So-
viets and the U.S. on the integrated
battlefield.

Richardson emphasized that the
U.S. must optimize allocation of its
scarce resources in fielding of ad-
vanced systems to achieve force mod-
ernization. We must, he continued,
articulate our needs better at all lev-
els, to include OSD and the Congress.

The Soviet acquisition process is
faster than the U.S. acquisition pro-
cess, said Richardson. This is because
the Soviets don’t wait for “total per-
fection” as we often do. The Soviets
use more off-the-shelf and more stan-
dardized items than we do.

Relative to the U.S. acquisition
process, Richardson said that it en-
counters too many delays. Said he:
“We must learn to produce faster and
product improve later.” Our system,
he noted, results in an extended ac-
quisition cycle and in extended costs.

Richardson called for a compressed
acquisition cycle and a broader base
research program so that we are not
taken by surprise by the Soviets.

We need many things to improve
our fighting capability, continued the
General. For example, he said, we
need a greater volume and range of
fire in some of our direct or indirect
fire systems. Lethality and accuracy
also need improvement relative to air
defense. Intelligence, surveillance
and target acquisition are other
areas that should also be reviewed.

Richardson noted that one of the
challenges facing the U.S. is to over-
come the complexity of our systems.
He said we must also overcome some
of our manpower training problems.
Additionally, he stated that coopera-
tion must be improved with industry
and that both industry and the Army
should seek to explain their dialogue.

BG (P) Carl E. Vuono, TRADOC
Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat De-
velopments, followed GEN Richard-
son with a discussion of TRADOC’s
role in development of concepts and
requirements.

The general explained that con-
cepts are used to help develop Mis-
sion Element Need Statements.
Everything begins, however, with op-
erational concepts. One of the efforts
that TRADOC is involved in to im-
prove the Army is the Division 86
Project, said Vuono.

The purpose of the Division 86 Proj-
ect is to develop the most effective
force for the Army’s heavy divisions.
A target date of 1986 is used because

18 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

that is when many systems will enter
the Army inventory and there is a
validated threat for that period.

Vuono also said that TRADOC is
looking at the Army’s light divisions
relative to the 1986 time frame. He
called on those in industry to help the
Army in developing the Division 86
Transition Plan.

MG D. E. Rosenblum, TRADOC
Deputy Chief of Staff for Training,
provided a lively discussion on the
challenges facing the Army relative
to training. He candidly stated that
more “below average intelligence”
people are coming into the Army
than ever before. This, however, can
be overcome by motivation. Today’s
enlistees are trainable, he said.

Rosenblum explained that there
are not enough training resources.
Time, people and facilities con-
straints are not helping us, he added.
All weapon systems are getting more
complex and training must be im-
proved. More people with technical
aptitudes are needed, he said.

He also discussed the problem of
skyrocketing costs. Said Rosenblum:
“We need more land, fuel, ammuni-
tion, etc., to conduct training.” Tech-
nology and the economics of the 1980s
may make training even more diffi-
cult than it is today, he stressed.

Rosenblum indicated that the Ar-
my Research Institute is studying an
improved type of aptitude test. The
image of the military must also be im-
proved and pride and self respect
must be built into the new people
coming into the Army.

Some other initiatives the Army is
taking to improve training, said Ro-
senblum, are new simulation systems
such as the Multiple Integrated La-
ser Engagement System, and battle
simulations for commanders. A new
National Training Center is also
being established in California to pro-
vide essential Army training that
cannot be provided at a home station.
He concluded by stating that train-
ing the force is the most critical issue
the Army faces today.

TRADOC Assistant Deputy Chief
of Staff for Combat Developments BG
John W. Woodmansee spoke on TRA-
DOC’s involvement in the Rational-
ization, Standardization, and Inter-
operability (RSI) arena. TRADOC’s
RSI philosophy, he said, is rational-
ization of concepts must precede in-
teroperability; that interoperability
offers the greatest potential for in-
creasing NATO combat power; and
that benefits of standardization are

March-April 1980

most attainable through a “micro” or
indirect incremental approach.

Woodmansee asked the question:
How do we get a systematic approach
to allied cooperation? He responded
by stating that ideally this would
happen through development of con-
cepts, then requirements, then evalu-
ation of requirements and finally to
cooperation on RSI products.

All nations must have their own re-
quirements process therefore a
bridge is required to understand each
other’s needs, explained Wood-
mansee. The vehicle for this, he said,
is an allied/U.S. military equipment
document. It is used to move from
concept to hardware and to assist in
formulating MOUs. This document
can also address the timing of when
systems are required and their costs.

Woodmansee closed with a brief
discusssion of the Bilateral Staff
Talks. The purposes of these talks, he
said, are to look at combined joint
tactical concepts, achieve tactical in-
teroperability, derive mutual weapon
system requirements, and increase
standardization of materiel.

A questions and answers panel dis-
cussion followed BG Woodmansee’s
presentation. Panel members were
BG Woodmansee, MG Rosenblum and
BG (P) Vuono.

Development and Approval of New
Concepts and Requirements was the
topic of MG Fred K. Mahaffey, Direc-
tor, Requirements, Office of the Dep-
uty Chief of Staff for Operations. He
began with a discussion of OMB Cir-
cular A-109, and the organizational
aspects of the requirements process.

A-109, said the General, has helped
to identify the need by mission, pro-
vides strong program management
features, and has created an opportu-
nity for industry innovation. In an
overview of requirements, Mahaffey
explained the uses of mission area
analyses, STOGs and MENS.

There is a continuing dilemma in
the requirements business, said Ma-
haffey, because of the necessity of de-
ciding whether to concentrate on
today’s readiness or tomorrow’s mod-
ernization. He added that changing
requirements often result from
changing threats, new technology
automation, communications, and
munitions.

The role of analysis in the require-
ments process was presented by LTC
Robert H. Cole from the Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of the Army
for Operations Research. He in-
dicated that 85 percent of the Army
studies are done in-house. When an
analysis is done, it is best to think in
terms of unit rather than single item
systems. Analysis has now become a

March-April 1980

normal part of the acquisition process,
he concluded.

COL Robert A. Wagg, Chief of the
DA Internationalization Rational-
ization Office, gave an overview of
the Army RSI program. He also dis-
cussed the M240 machinegun pro-
gram, the NATO Small Arms test
competition, the NATO Armaments
Planning Review, and the NATO Pe-
riodic Armaments Planning System.

The Colonel explained that RSI en-
compasses more than hardware pro-
grams. Doctrine, logistics, and train-
ing must also be included. In general,
he said that international programs
are not unlike our own hardware pro-
grams. International programs also
require the same degree of com-
plexity, intense management and re-
source allocations.

Mr. John B. Tower, corporate man-
ager, General Dynamics Corp., pro-
vided an industry perspective of the
requirements and concepts process.
He began with discussion of how the
Soviets view U.S. hardware progress
during the 1970s.

Moscow, he said, would have to con-
clude that we are well on the way to
achieving modernization. However,
he added, we have a long way to go.

Some of the reasons the U.S. is still
having to play catch up, noted Tower,
are because we are intimidated by
the procurement bow wave; because
we are intimidated by A-109 and the
MENS; because there is no new tech-
nology.

Catch-up is a dangerous game, said
Tower. Staying ahead is better. He
called for much greater participation
in the requirements process by indus-
try, the colleges, and the universities.

Former Army Secretary Martin R.
Hoffmann, who is now managing
partner of Gardner, Carton and
Douglas Law Firm, was banquet
speaker. He began his address by
stressing that the shift in the balance
of power in recent times is very omi-
nous. He posed the question of
whether a NATO arrangement can
compete with the Soviets.

Hoffmann indicated that during his
tenure, the terms RSI were used sep-
arately. Today, he said, they are
packaged together. Lumping them
together blurs the idea because the
terms are really not interchangeable.

The process of rationalization is
really the basis for enlightened coop-
eration, it is a worthy goal, stated
Hoffmann. Standardization, on the
other hand, is too often seen as a goal
in itself. It is a future possibility. It
should be used to optimize inter-
operability.

Hoffmann cautioned that a narrow
focus on RSI is not good. RSI is also

not a good substitute for increased
defense resources. He added that it is
not an end in itself.

The former Army Secretary em-
phasized that we must have shorter
requirement-to-development times.
This, he said, may entail more risk
than we have been willing to take re-
cently. Relative to OMB Circular A-
109, he said that it has helped formal-
ize the industry role in the require-
ments process.

Hoffmann noted that the U.S. can-
not wait for a clear blueprint of
where we will end up before we begin
the requirements process. Said he:
“The emphasis must be on action.”

There are times when progress can
be made and when it cannot be made,
and we must recognize this fact, he
added. He stated that there is a need
for greater assertiveness by industry
and for greater sacrifice for the com-
mon good, in general.

The second day of the seminar
opened with a panel discussion de-
voted to the Harmonization of Mate-
riel Requirements and Systems
Among and With Allied Nations. This
session was chaired by Dr. V. Garber,
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(International Defense Programs
and Technologies).

Dr. Garber discussed the key ele-
ments of the U.S. requirements pro-
cess and how the process is conducted
within the NATO arena. U.S. success
in the next war, he said, will not de-
pend on U.S. troops alone, but on al-
lied troop cooperation. A very ca-
pable alliance force is our number
one requirement, he added.

Dr. Garber indicated that one of
the most important needs is a rapidly
deployable force. He concluded by
stating that he would like to see 1980
“the year of interoperability.”

Vice Admiral Sir Stephen Berthon,
Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff
(Operations Requirements), UK Min-
istry of Defence, followed with a re-
view of the UK requirements process.
He called for a pooling of resources in
NATO in order to deter the Soviets.
He stated that the international col-
laboration is not moving fast enough.
He maintained that it is fundamen-
tally important to retain flexibility in
the requirements process because
unforeseen circumstances occur.

Berthon explained that 15 to 20
percent of UK defense money and
time is devoted to collaboration. He
echoed Dr. Garber’s hope that 1980
would be the year of interoperability.
Compromise among the allies in the
requirements process is most impor-
tant, he concluded, because we can-
not have our “gold-plated” items.

Other briefings on the inter-

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 19

national requirements process were
presented by Brigadier Helge Om-
reng, Norway; Count Corrado Au-
gusta, Italy; and General des Armees
Pierre Marais from France.

Deputy Defense Advisor for R&D
at NATO Mr. Robert Calaway noted,
in his address on RSI, that its prog-
ress has been uneven, but that it now
appears to be accelerating.

Calaway said that he believed that
some Europeans were skeptical
about the Long-Term Defense Pro-
gram and they viewed it as a “Buy
America” Program scheme. Many
think it is too risky to deal with the
U.S., he concluded.

Relative to the Congress, Calaway
stated that he believed Congress
sometimes thinks that the U.S. gives
away too much to other countries and
that European quality is deficient.

Some in Congress, he said, also
don’t believe that Europe is doing its
share. He concluded by stressing that
the U.S. must support a viable and
strong European defense industry
and that there are more similarities
than differences between the U.S.
and Europe.

Army Deputy Chief of Staff for
RDA LTG Donald R. Keith provided
an in-depth presentation on how the
Army is going about the task of ful-
filling requirements related to re-
search development, and acquisition.
Basic objectives of the RDA program,
he said, are to provide the Army with
the necessary weapons to deter war
and to win a war if one is necessary.

The rate of Soviet investment in
military materiel is a key concern to
the U.S., noted Keith. In recent
years, Soviet investments were
double those of the U.S. RDA pro-
grams. Keith called for attention to
three RDA strategies: concentra-
tions on technologies with the great-
est potential; more effective utiliza-
tion of the available industrial base;
and increased allied cooperation.

The management of modern-
ization, along with manning the force
is the most immediate challenge fac-
ing the Army, said Keith. Tech-
nology, noted Keith, remains the
source of the innovation concepts and
developments which are the founda-
tion of weapons systems, he added.

Keith also discussed some of the
barriers to technology application
and force packaging methodology.
Some of the specific R&D areas he re-
viewed were precision guided mis-
siles, very high speed integrated cir-
cuits, directed energy, advanced com-
posite materials, and computer
software technology. He closed with
an endorsement of the various co-
operative programs with NATO.

DARCOM Deputy Commander for
Materiel Development LTG Robert J.
Baer followed LTG Keith with a dis-
cussion of what DARCOM is doing to
further the objectives of the Army
RDA program. The cornerstone of
the development cycle, said Baer, is
the technology base. Without a
strong technology base there is
trouble building anything, he noted.

More effective utilization of the in-
dustrial base is another important
factor in the Army’s development
cycle, explained Baer. The con-
tracting out for research is growing,
said Baer, because of diminishing in-
house resources. He cautioned, how-
ever, that there is a limit to how
much can be contracted out.

He noted that computer-aided pro-
cedures are helping the Army get
more for its R&D dollar and that other
efforts to improve the materiel devel-
opment process include a new test
data collection system, improved de-
signs, improved reliability and an im-
proved technology data base.

Relative to RSI, he stated that we
have come a long way in the past
three years, but that there is still a
long way to go. He noted that the
main cooperative R&D project at the
present is the Multiple Launched
Rocket System.

Cooperative programs with short-
term goals in readiness, inter-
operability and modernization were
also discussed by Baer. These include
non-major items such as ammunition
and C3 interoperability. Non-major
items are a direct spin-off of the Bi-
lateral Staff Talks, Baer said.

Dr. Charles H. Church, chairman of
the Army’s Advanced Concepts
Team, described his organization’s
role in identifying and supporting
concepts which offer some potential
toward increasing the Army’s mate-
riel capability. He highlighted some
programs promoted by his office.

Dr. James Tegnelia from the De-
fense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) also provided an
overview of how his agency transfers
advanced technology from the re-
search phase into operational capa-
bilities. Two of the more promising
items he discussed were “Tank
Breaker” and “Assault Breaker.”

DARPA, said Tegnelia, actually
undertakes few projects. However,
those that it does receive a lot of re-
sources. DARPA, he noted, also has a
good working relationship with the
Army and with industry.

Director of Army Research Dr.
Marvin Lasser spoke on the Army’s
new emphasis on long-range acquisi-
tion planning. The goals that are now
being sought, said Lasser, are to ob-

20 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

tain technological equivalence with
the Soviets at least by 1985 and supe-
riority on or before 1990.

An associated goal, noted Lasser, is
to maintain our fielded capability at
the highest state of readiness. This,
he explained, can best be implement-
ed by the planning of product im-
provements to overcome difficulties
in our systems and to enhance their
operational capabilities.

Dr. Lasser called for improved
methods of R&D planning and for
more user-developer interaction. He
concluded that there must be more
input from industry during the plan-
ning process. This, he said, applies to
concepts and systems.

MG James H. Patterson, Director of
Battlefield Systems Integration, HQ
DARCOM, gave an overview of what
BSI is, why the Army has it and what
part industry can play with regard to
it. He defined BSI as the planning,
designing and engineering for total
systems integration.

BSI, stated Patterson, should be
considered an integral part of R&D
planning and therefore greater coop-
eration is needed between the user
and the developer. R&D planning, he
added, needs to encompass a stan-
dard set of guidelines. All of this is
necessary, he explained, if there is to
be an “integrated system.”

Patterson called on industry to
help identify problems and propose
solutions. Said he: “The technology
base of the Free World, both private
industry independent R&D and gov-
ernment laboratories, must be tied
closely to current concepts and doc-
trine— or offer innovative changes.
In this manner, he concluded, the
goals of BSI can be achieved.

A final panel discussion on the
“Risk Attitude” of industry relative
to international programs, sparked a
lively debate. The panel was chaired
by Mr. M C. Baird Jr. of Sanders As-
sociates. Other panelists were Count
Augusta, Mr. Ed Bursk, Ratheon,
and Mr. Berge Thomasian, vice presi-
dent of Maremont Corp. Some very
candid opinions, both positive and
negative, were aired relative to
NATO RSI.

DARCOM Commander GEN John
R. Guthrie presented closing remarks
and summarized his perceptions of
the seminar. Generally, he said, that
the meeting provided a good inter-
change between concerned parties.

He added that perhaps there
should have been more discussion of
what needs to be done in tactical nu-
clear and chemical warfare. Other
areas that should have received more
attention are software, integrated lo-
gistics support, and personnel.

March-April 1980

ETL Developing Quick Response Multicolor Muter

Someday a larger version of the
electrostatic color copiers, now found
in office reproduction pools, may be
installed in the semitrailer vans of
the Army Engineer topographic
units that produce maps and battle-
field graphics.

Researchers at the Army Engineer
Topographic Laboratories, Fort Bel-
voir, VA, are investigating the idea of
borrowing the technology used in of-
fice copiers and applying it to repro-
duce large map sheets. This tech-
nological innovation now appears to
be practical. This is because a recent-
ly developed laser scanner has im-
proved the “dry copying’’ process,
making possible the fine resolution
needed for map reproduction.

The need for a faster way of copy-
ing topographic maps and map over-
lays was identified in an official post-
war study of World War II map us-
age. The study revealed that only
about 10 percent of the topographic
maps available in the European The-
ater of Operations had been used.
Compiled and printed in advance,
these maps became obsolete by the
time they were needed for military
engagements, the study concluded.

The Army’s need for quickly repro-
duced, up-to-date maps is even more
acute today. If a massive offensive is
launched without warning, there will
not be time for revision and printing
of new maps on presses in the United
States or in field support vans.

Commanders will need printed
maps overlaid with current informa-
tion on enemy dispositions, damage
to transport routes, and many other
recent changes in the ground on
which the battle will be fought.

Currently, tactical overlays are
drawn in color on transparent sheets.
The drawback to using transparent
overlays with printed maps, is that
they cannot be quickly duplicated in
the field. Each additional copy of the
overlay must be redrafted by hand.

Chemical engineer Mr. Fred Myers,
who heads the Topographic Labora-
tories’ project to develop a Quick Re-
sponse Multicolor Printer, described
a typical combat situation where
such a device could save lives and
help U.S. forces to win battles.

“Suppose you are an artillery bat-
talion commander,” says Myers, “and
you have just learned of a shift in
enemy forces. The old lines of deploy-
ment are quickly erased from your
master overlay, and new lines are
drawn in. But what about your bat-
tery commanders, who also need this
information in graphic form? They
need it right away.

“Using metal plates, colored inks,
and a printing press, the job will take
at least three to four hours, and by
then the tactical picture may have
changed completely. An electrostatic
printer could do the job in ten min-
utes.”

Myers also explained that the new
technique of scanning the color origi-
nal with a laser beam instead of
flash-exposing the entire original at
once with a diffuse light source will
give very even exposure from center
to edges of a 24 x 30-inch map.

To use the older method of ex-
posure on such a large sheet would
have resulted in a reproduction that
was too light in the center and too
dark at the edges.

After fabrication and testing of
prototypes, it is proposed that the
Quick Response Multicolor Printer be
produced for use by topographic ele-
ments at corps and division head-
quarters and the engineer topo-
graphic battalion at theater Army
level. Myers envisions that the print-
er would weigh about 2,000 pounds
and would be housed in a truck or a
semitrailer van.

The large-bed color copier would
cut down on the logistical problem of
producing and storing large volumes
of printed maps in the field. As many

map sheets as might be required
could be printed from a single origi-
nal kept in file.

Compared to printing presses now
in use in the field, the Quick Re-
sponse Multicolor Printer would re-
quire less manpower and a lower skill
level to operate and maintain.

If the change to electrostatic print-
ing proves practical for the special
conditions of the battlefield, it will be
the first fundamental advance in
combat map reproduction tech-
nology, since single-color offset lith-
ographic field presses were in-
troduced before WW II, Myers said.

“Electrostatic printers will prob-
ably not take the place of lithograph-
ic presses for large volume map print-
ing, but they would be an invaluable
addition for meeting tactical com-
manders’ most urgent needs,” added
Meyers.

GERL Releases New Report
On Seismic Shock Testing

The U.S. Army Construction Engi-
neering Research Laboratory
(CERL), Champaign, IL, recently re-
leased a report to help establish seis-
mic shock test criteria for equipment
used in military facilities, such as
hospitals, fire and police stations.

The report, “Development and Use
of Seismic Shock Test Criteria for Es-
sential Equipment in Critical Facili-
ties,” by Messrs. P. N. Sonnenburg
and J. D. Prendergast, also provides
guidance for interpretation of test re-
sults.

Using existing data from proof and
fragility tests on tactical support
equipment, CERL researchers deter-
mined failure characteristics. These
characteristics were further ana-
lyzed to provide failure probability
estimates.

The report summarizes major
tasks in equipment test qualification:
selecting the test facility, formulat-
ing test units and criteria, estab-
lishing test qualification require-
ments, and interpreting test results.

Test criteria were developed by se-
lection of the test axis (horizontal,
vertical, or both); statement of oper-
ating configuration (is the equipment
turned on or off?); identifying points
of failure; and describing the shock
environment.

The shock environment description
can be transformed into a time his-
tory waveform to drive a shaketable.

The report also presents methods
for developing waveform test criteria
from the output of various types of
dynamic building analyses. Require-
ments for reporting and documenting
test results are also discussed.

Quick-Response Multicolor Printer

March-April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 21

The Advanced Planning Briefing: Its Evolution and Status

By John F. X. Mannix

Problems of obtaining advanced
planning information have always
been of vital concern to contractors
who do business with the govern-
ment. Contractors believed they
could do a better job if they knew
about future military plans as far in
advance as possible.

Knowledge of these plans would al-
low them to plan their company-fund-
ed, R&D activities in specific areas
that are of interest to government
agencies. They would therefore be
equipped to respond to government
programs faster and with greater
technical competency.

Certain preliminary R&D could al-
so be completed, thereby saving the
government money. Although many
government managers saw the logic
in this argument — and some were
very sympathetic, until the 1960s,
Federal Procurement Regulations
prevented release of some informa-
tion requested by industry.

Since that time, a number of pro-
grams have been initiated to meet in-
dustry’s request. Initially, these
were mainly programs that supplied
a book of printed problems, which
was forwarded to manufacturers who
had security clearances and appro-
priate technical capabilities.

The Problems Guide Program, initi-
ated in about 1960, was typical. Each
of the seven technical services pub-
lished a “Guide.” This program lasted
a little over three years and assisted
in solving a few R&D problems, but it
did not adequately fill the need.

The mechanics necessary for a
manufacturer to actively take part in
the program were slow. After discov-
ering an area where they thought
they could help, manufacturers often
lost interest while awaiting approval
and background reports from the
government.

In 1963, the Department of Defense
inaugurated the Advanced Planning
Briefing (APB) Program. According
to DOD regulations, APBs would pro-
vide industry and academia with cur-
rent, factual, and definite informa-
tion on mid- and long-range plans,
policies, and programs in support of
future military requirements.

The basic purpose of the APB is to
facilitate the mutually profitable ex-
change of information. It is designed
to insure full participation by all in-
terested DOD agencies in applicable
APBs; and to assist DOD agencies in
effective preparation of optimal plans
responsive to their future require-

ments.

Though both unclassified and clas-
sified versions were authorized (and
still are used), naturally the classi-
fied types provided more depth of in-
formation. These briefings would pro-
vide a clear and concise presentation
of military needs and the scientific
and technological advances to meet
future military requirements at the
least cost and in the most efficient
manner. Information previously de-
nied to private industry could be in-
cluded.

The program was considered a step
in the right direction by the industri-
al community. Subject matter includ-
ed estimated costs contained in the
5-Year Defense Program, subject
matter not incorporated in the ap-
proved 5-Year Defense Program, and
quantitative figures of projected pur-
chases and quantities (or numbers) to
be procured for test and evaluation.

However, although the APB was
considered a significant break-
through by the industrial commu-
nity, there were still problems to be
solved before the program could
reach its full potential and be valu-
able to industry and government.

The APB was a new concept to mili-
tary managers, whose staffs were ac-
customed to conducting highly tech-
nical symposia on programs con-
cerning their installations’ scientific
accomplishments. These installa-
tions were not experienced at sup-
plying information on long-range fu-
ture plans.

DOD installation, for years had
hosted visits by professional or trade
associations whose membership had
an interest in national defense.
These groups wanted to be told what
the host had accomplished to improve
our national defense posture. They
were interested in recent state-of-
the-art advances in those areas un-
der the purview of DOD installations.

Emphasis was on banquets, demon-
strations, and exhibits of field equip-
ment. Very little or no attention was
given to advanced requirements.

Contractors who attended these
functions did so mainly because they
served as a vehicle for business con-
tacts. Since this was the accepted
practice, many of the initial APBs
were conducted along the same for-
mat.

Another problem was that some of
the first APBs resembled scientific
symposia. Detailed technical dis-
cussions were presented on each task
being pursued by the host installa-
tion. Since the attendees were plan-

ners rather than researchers, much
of the material was appreciated.

Since many programs lasted for
three days or more, the attendees
were saturated with scientific data.
It was difficult to filter out necessary
technical and planning data for their
future company programing.

To compound the problem, once the
program was over, other high-prior-
ity projects were assigned to the
speakers and program directors.
Therefore, it was often six months to
a year before the proceedings con-
taining the presented papers were re-
ceived by the attendees. Con-
sequently, the information was old or
the manufacturers had lost interest
in the problems at the briefing.

Some agencies used another ap-
proach. Rather than presenting a
program “across the board,” based on
the overall mission, they would cover
one technical area in detail. This type
of briefing was a step in the right di-
rection, but a contractor often had to
attend five or six briefings over a pe-
riod of three or four years to obtain
complete planning information on
one DOD installation.

It is important that APBs be prop-
erly coordinated. Since many con-
tractors are interested in the pro-
grams of a number of different mili-
tary R&D facilities throughout the
country, it is important that they at-
tend the briefings at all these instal-
lations.

These briefings must not run con-
currently or even close together. For
example, in the Department of the
Army, the Technical and Industrial
Liaison Office at Headquarters DAR-
COM, is the coordinating office to as-
sure that conflicts do not occur.

That office also has the final power
for approving technical presenta-
tions and for coordinating attend-
ance of foreign manufacturers. For a
number of years, Australian, British,
and Canadian firms have been in-
vited to APBs in accordance with DA
regulations.

Recent emphasis on RSI has also
demanded considering NATO attend-
ance when possible. RSI have become
central concepts to improve NATO’s
conventional capability. In March
1977, DOD directed that all its com-
ponents include NATO standard-
ization and interoperability as funda-
mental considerations in major and
minor equipment programs.

The original DOD directive per-
taining to APBs stipulated that mili-
tary R&D organizations would, ex-
cept in unusual circumstances, con-

March-April 1980

22 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

duct a briefing no more than once a
year and no less than once every
three years.

Many laboratories were surprised
at the success of their first briefing,
and resolved that if industry valued
them, they would conduct additional
programs. It was not unusual for one
installation to sponsor two briefings
a year.

The organizations following this
policy soon found they had little to
talk about after the second or third
program. Research and development
usually does not proceed at a pace
where new requirements demand
two programs a year. This has result-
ed in a directive that each Army R&D
activity will conduct such a program
every three years.

The former Electronics Command
at Fort Monmouth, NJ, took a lead in
the development of effective APBs.
They soon found it was not easy to
conduct a professional briefing that
would furnish industry with the plan-
ning information it needed.

A certain amount of experimenta-
tion was necessary. Following each
program, comments from the attend-
ees were collected and analyzed. Ap-
propriate recommendations were in-
corporated in the next program.

MPBM Project Office
Becomes Permanent
Agency at ARRCOM

Redesignation of the Office of the
Project Manager for Munitions Pro-
duction Base Modernization and Ex-
pansion as the U.S. Army Munitions
Production Base Modernization
Agency, has been announced. The
mission and organization of the new
agency are unchanged.

COL Harry V. Dutchyshyn, who
has served as the PM for Munitions
Production Base Modernization and
Expansion since 1978, will head the
new agency as its commander. He
will serve also as Army Armament
Materiel Readiness Command depu-
ty for Munitions Production Base
Modernization.

Establishment of the new organi-
zation as a permanent agency was
approved by the Secretary of the Ar-
my and the DARCOM commander.
The change was made in recognition
of the long-term need for intensive
centralized management of the
MPBM Program in support of the
Single Manager. The new agency re-
ports directly to the ARRCOM com-
mander/Single Manager for Conven-
tional Ammunition.

In the past 13 years, Fort Mon-
mouth has conducted 13 APBs, all of
which were well received by the in-
dustrial community. However, these
programs were two or three days
long and required extensive and ex-
pensive preparation. In 1973, Fort
Monmouth conducted an innovative
APB in accordance with Army Regu-
lation 70-35. A completely new format
was used.

Invitations were mailed out in De-
cember 1972. In early February, the
complete classified proceedings, Elec-
tronics Systems Planning for 1973-
7U , were forwarded to industrialists
interested in attending the briefing.
Questionnaires accompanied the pro-
ceedings.

Eight weeks were allowed for the
recipients to review the document,
assign the appropriate members of
their technical staff to attend, and
submit questions. The actual pro-
gram consisted of an updating of the
material in the proceedings and ex-
tensive question and answer periods.

An addendum containing the min-
utes of the actual program was for-
warded to all attendees within six
weeks after the briefing. A similar
briefing was held in March 1975.

The new format was analyzed by
command and industry personnel,
and the following conclusions were
reached:

• Preplanning reduced the time re-
quired to conduct an extremely pro-
fessional program from two or three
days to one day. The new format also
reduced financing.

• The new format saved close to
$100,000 in man-days on the part of
engineers and scientists in eliminat-
ing dry runs, reworking papers, and
reducing the workload.

• After reviewing the advanced
proceedings, the firms were better
able to identify staff members who
were best qualified to attend the
briefing, ask questions, and satisfac-
torily report on the program.

• Materials presented were tai-
lored to the more exacting need of the
participants. Actual presentations
were based on industry questions

and indicated real areas of interest.

• Since the proceedings were dis-
tributed before the program, authors
had no limitation on the amount of
material they could present. They
could be sure that technological ad-
vances were fully explained, prob-
lems completely outlined, and re-
quirements fully described.

• When longer more complex pro-
grams were held, it was necessary to
form a committee to coordinate the
many details. This was not necessary
with a one-day completely self-con-
tained briefing.

• The new format saved both the
government and the industrial com-
munity tens of thousands of dollars.

In conclusion, the new format was
found to be an excellent way to fur-
nish industry with the planning and
programing information it needs to
more adequately respond to Army re-
quirements. It is a format that al-
lowed the Army to meet DOD re-
quirements at a minimum cost to
both the government and the indus-
trial community.

Other Army commands or DOD
agencies may have found another
format more suitable for meeting
their needs. In any event, it can be
stated that after 12 years, the Ad-
vanced Planning Briefing Program
has matured to the point where in-
dustry now has a vehicle for obtain-
ing the planning information it so ur-
gently needs.

On 8 November 1979, the newly
formed U.S. Army Electronics R&D
Command, Adelphi, MD, conducted
its first Advanced Planning Briefing
for Industry at the Naval Surface
Weapons Center auditorium, White
Oak, MD. The program was cospon-
sored by the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command.

DARCOM Commander GEN John
R. Guthrie delivered the banquet pre-
sentation the evening before the
briefing. The new format was uti-
lized. Critique forms and personal
comrqents to staff members of
ERADCOM revealed that this pro-
gram was extremely well received by
industry.

JOHN F.X. MANN IX is chief of the Technical and
Industrial Liaison Office, U.S. Army Electronics Re-
search and Development Command. He has a BS de-
gree from Upsala College, an MA degree from the Uni-
versity of Oklahoma, and has published a number of
articles on research and development, and manage-
ment.

March-April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 23

Natick Evaluating New Emergency Assault Food Packet

Approximately 300 U.S. Marines,
participating in cold weather train-
ing exercises at the Marine Corps
Mountain Warfare Training Center,
Bridgeport, CA, will be assisting food
technologists of the U.S. Army Nat-
ick (MA) R&D Command (NARAD-
COM) in evaluating a new emergency
assault food packet designed for ex-
treme cold environments.

The new rations, various food bars
that include 12 different compressed
freeze dried entrees, cereal bars, and
a variety of confectionary bars devel-
oped for the Corps, are the result of
NARADCOM’s continuing effort to
develop food bars which are palat-
able, may be eaten either dry or re-
hydrated and are convenient to use.

Six of 12 different meat entrees
have been selected for the test. Some
of the items provide quick energy and
others can be rehydrated with water
to produce food products such as beef
or chicken stew, pork and escalloped
potatoes, pork chow mein, etc.

The packets are unique in that
they can be utilized in the extreme
cold or extreme hot or temperate cli-
mates without freezing or melting.
They have considerably less weight
and volume per energy unit than cur-
rent operational rations, and they
can be stored for several years with-
out refrigeration.

Previous formulated field rations,
as well as the newly adopted Meal
Ready to Eat Combat ration, present
a number of problems when used in
the extreme cold. These items all
have a comparatively high water con-
tent and, consequently, freeze at low
temperatures, and require tremen-
dous amounts of heat to prepare for
eating. The new bars, developed at
Natick, overcome these difficulties
because they are very low in water
content, do not freeze, and can be
used in all climates.

The development program origi-
nated from the Marine Corps need to
provide a food packet to be used as a
restricted diet during assaults and
other situations when feeding is diffi-
cult. A restricted diet is one in which
the calories supplied in a daily ration
are markedly less than the daily calor-
ic output.

The preset design of the food pack-
et contains the minimum nutritional
requirements for a restricted diet.
The caloric content per packet of the
six menus to be tested averages 1,500
calories, and the packets will normal-
ly be issued at the rate of one per day
for short assault missions.

Research has shown that men can
function normally on 1,000 to 1,400

calories per day for up to 10 days,
during hard work under normal tem-
perature conditions, provided that
certain minimum daily requirements
are met for protein, carbohydrate, vi-
tamins, and minerals.

The field test will evaluate this con-
cept in a cold climate by comparing
performance levels of those eating
the compressed bars at two different
caloric levels, 1,500 and 3,000 calories,
with others consuming current oper-
ational rations during a 5-day tacti-
cal scenario.

It appears that most estimates for
the caloric needs in cold climates are
excessive for the properly clothed
and equipped soldier. It has been
shown that the amount of physical
activity is the principal factor (not
the ambient temperature) in deter-
mining the caloric needs of an indi-
vidual.

A number of studies on cold weath-
er nutrition, compiled by Letterman
Army Institute of Research, indicate
that the increase in caloric intake in
cold climates is the result of an in-
crease in appetite, not an increase in
caloric output.

Based on these facts, the use of the
Emergency/Assault Packet as a re-
stricted diet in an extreme cold cli-
mate for periods of 3 to 5 days should
not be much different than in a tem-
perate climate. For missions requir-
ing extreme physical activity over a
prolonged period of time, additional
units can be issued to fill any realistic
nutritional need with a minimum in-
crease in load weight and volume.

During the training exercises, med-

Soldier samples one of six food bars
being evaluated at the U.S. Army Nat-
ick R&D Command for possible use in
an Emergency/Assault Packet de-
signed for extreme cold environments.

ical personnel from NARADCOM and
the Naval Submarine Medical Re-
search Laboratory, Groton, CT, will
monitor body water balance, since de-
hydration in extreme cold climates is
a major problem and contributing
factor to the onset of shock following
injuries or exhaustion following ex-
treme stress.

Participants will be tested not only
for their physical performance and
physiological responses, but they will
be evaluating the acceptance and op-
erational characteristics of the food.

This type of packet may also have a
number of commercial applications.
The compactness, light weight, sta-
bility, and nutritional assets of this
packet make it ideal for back-packers
and for survival rations for shelters,
lifeboats, airplanes and caches in sea-
sonably inhospitable environments.

Double Pin Design Extends Tank Track Life

A double-pin track, designed to pro-
vide longer track and pad life, easier
maintenance and reduced noise and
vibration than single-pin tracks now
used on the Army’s M113 vehicles, is
under evaluation by the U.S. Army
Tank-Automotive R&D Command,
Warren, MI.

MG Joseph O. Fix (USA, Ret.) of
TARADCOM’s Tank-Automotive
Systems Laboratory, said the new de-
sign features increased bushing area
to reduce bushing loading, increased
pad area and improved shape to re-
duce loading and wear, and wider
sprocket and drive area to lessen
wear in these areas.

The new design also incorporates a
quick-change pad feature which uses
a quarter-inch turn tab on the pad
bolt, thereby shortening the time
needed to replace worn pads. Pad nut
and end-connector bolts use the same
wrench size, so only one wrench is

needed for servicing the track.

Although the design of the new
track is somewhat different from that
of the T130E1 concept, the only M113
modification required for mounting
this track would be a change to wider
sprockets.

Fix noted that upcoming tests,
which will include 7,000 miles of oper-
ation on vehicles in the field, are
scheduled for completion early in
1981, at which time the Army will
consider using the new track on the
product-improved M113A2, now being-
introduced into the field.

In its present form the new track
weighs 22.9 pounds per shoe, com-
pared to 21.3 pounds for each T130E1
track shoe — which would mean an
increase of roughly 200 pounds to the
overall weight of the M113A2. It may
be possible to eliminate part of the
extra weight by making design modi-
fications, according to Fix.

March-April 1980

24 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

HDL Unveils No-Moving Parts Fluidic Servovalve

A no-moving parts fluidic servo-
valve, capable of replacing conven-
tional spool valves, and which might
save the U.S. taxpayer millions of
dollars, has been unveiled by engi-
neers at the U.S. Army’s Harry Dia-
mond Laboratories, Adelphi, MD.

Servovalves are typically used to
operate moving parts in earth mov-
ing equipment, fighter jets, armored
vehicles, and commercial aircraft.
Scientists from HDL, along with Dr.
David N. Wormley and Mr. David Lee
of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, have been studying flu-
idic servovalves since 1975.

The new servovalve typically
weighs only a fraction as much as the
conventional servovalve. It also re-
sponds faster and may eventually
cost far less, be many times more re-
liable, and last much longer.

The chief difference between this

and older servovalves is that this hy-
draulic system has no moving parts
to wear out. It also is compatible with
many different kinds of equipment,
and is flexible enough to accomplish
many different servovalve functions,
instead of using different valves for
different jobs.

The jet deflection fluidic servovalve
can be adapted for either pressure
control or flow control by a screw ad-
justment. The entire piece of equip-
ment can be made as small as a one-
inch cube. Part for part, it can direct-
ly replace current spool valves.

Servovalves regulate and adjust
the pressure of fluids passing into
chambers to move rams or other me-
chanical actuators. Conventional me-
chanical servovalves must be ex-
tremely tightly fitted, causing great
wear as the parts slide against one
another. As a consequence, spool ser-

vovalves usually last only a few hun-
dred hours.

The lightweight fluidic servovalve
deflects the pressure stream with
tiny amounts of fluid. Signals from
both sides of the 2-pronged system
are fed back to the main stream in-
put. One signal greatly increases the
pressure coming to bear on the actua-
tor. The other limits the amount go-
ing to the actuator.

Now in its research and fundamen-
tal environmental evaluation phase,
the program is expected to have an
impact on military equipment by the
mid-1980s.

Alexander Expedites
Hydroelectric Energy

Secretary of the Army Clifford L.
Alexander Jr. has announced that he
has directed the Chief of Engineers
to take aggressive and expeditious
action to support hydroelectric ener-
gy initiatives proposed by President
Carter.

In coordination with other federal
agencies, the Corps of Engineers is
expediting the drafting of legislation
requested by the President. The pro-
posed legislation would simplify pro-
cedures so that economically feasible
and environmentally acceptable hy-
droelectx'ic projects at federal dams
may be completed more quickly.

The Corps of Engineers is com-
pleting a major expansion of capacity
at its existing hydropower plants.
These have more than twice the ca-
pacity they had 20 years ago. Addi-
tional generators have been installed
at Corps projects around the country
where the original construction pro-
vided for additional hydroelectric
units to meet future demands.

Much of the additional generating
capacity being installed is at existing
projects in the Columbia Basin in the
Pacific Northwest. This summer, the
Corps completed an expansion of
Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia
River, which doubled the capacity of
that power house.

A second power house is under con-
struction at Bonneville Dam, on the
Lower Columbia River, which will
more than double the generating ca-
pacity of that project. Planning is al-
so under way for a second power
house at McNary Dam, also on the
Columbia River.

The Corps’ National Hydropower
Study, after preliminary analysis,
has identified 180 existing Corps of
Engineers projects which have a po-
tential for providing over 2.5 million
KW of additional capacity.

Army Procures Shelters for POMCUS

The U.S. Army Troop Support and
Aviation Materiel Readiness Com-
mand, St. Louis, MO, recently pro-
cured a quantity of Flexible Barrier
Shelters for long term storage of
Prepositioned Materiel Configured to
Unit Sets (POMCUS) in Europe.

The technical characteristics and
procurement data for the purchase of
26 shelters, that will hold the items
ready for immediate issue in the
event of emergency, were developed
and prepared by the U.S. Army Nat-
ick (MA) Research and Development
Command, Natick, MA.

Twenty thousand square feet of
unencumbered one-level humidity-
controlled warehouse space are pro-
vided by the 302 feet long, 72 feet
wide and 30 feet high shelters. An in-
dustrial coated fabric outer cover,
which conforms to critical safety and
operational requirements, including
resistance to chemical warfare
agents, is supported by a sectional-
ized steel frame which can be quickly
assembled without special tools.

A 1,500 cubic feet per minute capac-
ity dehumidifier maintains shelter
interiors at a nominal 50 percent rel-

ative humidity under all ambient
conditions. A complete electrical sys-
tem includes 26 overhead low energy
draw, high pressure sodium lights, as
well as outlets for electrically oper-
ated tools and equipment.

Electrically and manually operated
cargo doors at each end of the shelter
provide drive-through capability
while a number of personnel doors lo-
cated at the sides permit easy en-
trance with a minimum effect on inte-
rior conditions.

Tests indicate that when relative
humidity has attained equilibrium
within the shelter, the automatically
controlled dehumidifier will operate
less than 50 percent of the time. The
Flexible Barrier Shelters system is
cost effective for long term storage.

The shelters are earmarked for the
21st Support Command, headquar-
tered in Mannheim, Germany,
charged with the responsibility for
maintaining POMCUS storage sites
throughout Germany, Belgium and
the Netherlands. The first six items
being procured were delivered to the
Combat Equipment Battalion North
in Moenchengladbach in March.

Flexible Barrier Shelter for POMCUS Storage Sites in Europe

March-April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 25

Watervliet Develops New Concept for Recycling Waste

The idea of reclaiming waste mate-
rial once routinely thrown away and
reprocessing it for use in making
“second-generation” goods is nothing
new. However, at Watervliet Arse-
nal, the combined efforts of Benet
Weapons Laboratory, and the Prod-
uct Assurance Directorate and Oper-
ations Directorate have given a new
twist to the concept of recycling.

In recent projects, these organiza-
tions have come up with cost-saving
methods of recycling worn-out gun
tubes and breech rings — projects
that promise to mean million-dollar
payoffs for the Arsenal. In a program
started about two years ago, Benet
scientists have developed and tested
a recycling process for making new
forgoings out of scrap gun tubes.

Initiation of an intensive effort to
develop a new chemical-biological
protective mask has been announced
by the U.S. Army Armament R&D
Command’s Chemical Systems Labo-
ratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground.

The mask is being developed for
use by all the Armed Services. When
fielded, it will replace the current in-
ventory of protective devices.

Designated the XM30, the new
mask provides respiratory, eye and
face protection against chemical and
biological agents. It consists of a
molded elastomer facepiece with an
in-turned peripheral seal and a large
flexible lens bonded to the facepiece.

Canada is assuming responsibility
for developing the mask’s new can-
ister. According to Mr. Jim Cauller,
the CSL development management
officer, one of the mask’s features is
that the Canadian developed canister
can be worn on either cheek.

“It’s an external canister that can
be easily attached to either side of
the mask, and this will enable the
seven or eight percent of military
personnel who are left handed to use
shoulder fired weapons without a
special mask,” says Cauller.

The Army’s current protective
mask, the M17A1 has a filler in both
cheeks, making it difficult to properly
sight the Army’s M 16 rifle.

“Another feature of the mask,”
Cauller added, “is a flexible wide
angle lens for coupling with field in-
struments and sighting devices on
modern sophisticated weapons.”

The mask will be produced in small,
medium and large sizes to accommo-
date male and female personnel and
assure a rapid donning capability.

Other features include a dual voice-

According to Mr. Charlie Calde-
rone, project leader in Benet’s Ad-
vanced Engineering Section, “shot-
out” gun tubes, such as the now-re-
placed 8-inch M2A2 howitzer, have
traditionally been sold to scrap deal-
ers for remelt. The scrapped-out
tubes sell for only a few cents per
pound — a fraction of the true value of
the alloys contained in the high-qual-
ity steel from which the original tube
was made.

The advent of the rotary forge
here — with its ability to forge various
configurations from a given volume
of raw material — opened up a new
idea for disposing of worn-out tubes.
Why not try re-forging new tubes
from old ones, rather than selling the
useless tubes as scrap steel?

mitter system as well as systems for
drinking and providing mouth-to-
mouth resuscitation. For aircraft and
tank applications, where a chest-
mounted canister is required, a hose
assembly is provided.

Cauller was assigned to the Tooele
Army Depot, UT, as director of the
Army’s Chemical Agent Munitions
Disposal System, prior to heading the
new mask development program in
CSL’s Physical Protection Division.

He is backed up in the current de-
velopment program by Mr. John
Franz, a chemical engineer who is
serving as the program’s assistant
for development; Mr. Frank A. Mar-
tin, an industrial engineer as assist-
ant for producibility and logistics; and
by Mr. Max Negler, a veteran engi-
neering technician who has made nu-
merous contributions to the Army’s
protective mask R&D programs.

Mr. John Boardway, Mr. John
Scavnicky and Mr. Josiah Mok have
been assigned as development engi-
neers for the respective canister,
facepiece and components, and mate-
rials areas of the R&S program.

Jim Cauller

The first step in testing this con-
cept was the design of a computer
program to show potential combina-
tions of tubes that could be re-forged
directly from different-size fired-out
guns brought back from the field. In
the case of the 8-inch M2A2, tube
length and diameter showed a poten-
tial for yielding two new 105mm M68
tubes after rotary forging.

To test the theory in practice, sev-
eral scrap 8-inch M2A2 tubes were
brought back to the Arsenal from de-
pot graveyards. Gun bores are first
cleaned to remove the rifling and any
firing damage. Next, some minor ma-
chining is done on the outer surface
and each tube is cut into three sec-
tions— one to be discarded, two to be
re-forged into new tubes. Each 8-inch
M2A2 scrap tube can produce either
two 105mm M68 forgings or two
155mm M185 forgings.

According to Calderone, the poten-
tial savings from recycling scrap
tubes can add up to millions of dol-
lars. For example, a conventional
105mm M68 forging costs about
$3,200 versus a cost of about $1,200
for rotary forging from a scrap tube —
representing an estimated savings of
about $2,000 per gun.

In another project calculated to
save about 60 percent of the cost of
producing a breech mechanism for
the new 8-inch M201 howitzer, Prod-
uct Assurance Directorate and Benet
Weapons Lab engineers have worked
out a proposal to recycle 8-inch M2A2
breech rings and other small breech
components. Through a minimum
amount of machining, a scrap M2A2
ring can be made into a new ring for
the M201 howitzer.

By recycling the M2A2 ring, Water-
vliet can save both the cost of buying
a new breech ring forging and the
cost of start-to-finish machining — a
savings that PAD puts at almost
$5,000 per breech. With more than
400 M2A2 breeches already received
at Letterkenny Army Depot and now
in various stages of disassembly, the
potential savings reportedly add up
to a healthy sum.

A third project at Watervliet in-
volves machining a bushing from a
12-inch piece of steel cut from the
breech end of the M201 tube. The
piece, which is needed to guide the
swage mandrel into the gun bore and
as a locking groove for lifting clamps,
was previously discarded as scrap.
However, by cutting step threads and
machining the piece, it can be re-
claimed as a bushing for the recycled
8-inch M2A2 breech ring assembly,
another $1,000 per unit.

CSL Developing New Chemical Protective Mask

26 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

March-April 1980

ETL Announces Production of 99 PAD Systems

Litton Guidance and Control Systems will manu-
facture 99 automated inertial survey systems for
the field artillery over the next three years, accord-
ing to a recent announcement by the U.S. Army En-
gineer Topographic Labs (ETL), Fort Belvoir, VA.

Called the Position and Azimuth Determining
System (PADS), the new hardware was developed
by Litton under contract to ETL. In operational
testing, PADS reportedly proved capable of survey-
ing 84 percent faster than conventional artillery
survey equipment.

PADS also reduces the manpower required for a
survey mission from seven surveyors to two. Car-
ried in a Jeep or helicopter and controlled by one
operator and a driver or pilot, PADS provides the
vehicle’s position, elevation, and azimuth at the
push of a button.

Artillery surveyors are said to need PADS’ high
speed to support highly mobile missile and cannon
batteries. These units may be required to change
positions as often as eight times in 24 hours.

PADS also can provide a common grid needed by
battalion and division commanders for massing fire

PADS OPERATOR gives position coordinates from com-
puter in rear of jeep.

Jeep equipped with PADS. The control/display unit is barely visible at the
right of the driver’s seat; primary pallet and auxiliary batteries are con-
tained in the rear of the jeep.

PADS major components include primary pallet (left), con-
trol/display unit (center) and secondary pallet with aux-
iliary batteries (right).

accurately on one target from several batteries.

A river or mountain is no obstacle to PADS. Two
soldiers can remove PADS from a jeep and put it
into a light observation helicopter without loss of
survey, as the PADS power source takes over from
the vehicle’s power source. Unlike conventional
survey equipment, PADS can operate in fair or foul
weather, day or night.

Project Engineer Fred Gloeckler says, “today’s
artillery will certainly benefit from the versatile
survey capability, the improved first-round ef-
fectiveness, and the fast reaction time that PADS
can offer.”

Close coordination between the Engineer Topo-
graphic Laboratories and the field artillery marked
the development and testing of PADS. As a result,
PADS met or exceeded all standards of the required
operational capability for the system.

March-April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 27

Capsules. . .

CSL Developing XM81 Training Device

Army engineers and technicians at the Armament
R&D Command’s Chemical Systems Laboratory, APG,
MD, have come up with a concept for developing a device
that will soon provide American field forces with the
means for properly training personnel on the Army’s M8
Automatic Chemical Agent Alarm (ACAA) system.

Officials of the Army Chemical and Ordance Center and
School initially recognized the need for a device that
could be remotely activated to simulate agent cloud trav-
el and provide realistic field conditions during training
exercises.

Specifically, they were asking for a training device that
could be remotely activated by a hand-held battery oper-
ated radio transmitter while field training operations as-
sociated with the M8 alarm were in progress.

Developers at Chemical Systems Laboratory’s CB De-
tection and Alarms Division feel the simulator detector
unit is the answer to this training requirement, pointing
out that the concept calls for one simulator to be used in
conjunction with four alarms deployed in a tactical situa-
tion and that a chemical attack can be simulated by selec-
tively activating the alarms by a radio signal.

Designated the XM81, the training device is currently
in exploratory development in the point sampling section
of the Chemical Systems Laboratory (CSL) Chemical De-
tection and Alarms Branch.

When fielded, it will be used worldwide to train military
personnel in how the M8 alarm as well as other defense
equipment is integrated in a field situation and how indi-
vidual pieces of equipment interact together to provide
total chemical protection.

The device will be used to support TRADOC schools as
well as post and division level NBC schools, in unit train-
ing, and at the Army in Europe NBC defense schools.

According to Mr. T. L. Strozyk, the project officer, the
program will soon enter engineering development with
type classification expected in Fiscal Year 1981.

G-76 Generator Nears Completion

An accelerated program to design and develop an im-
proved hand-cranked electrical generator for military use
is nearing completion at the U.S. Army Electronics Re-
search and Development Command’s Harry Diamond
Laboratories (HDL).

The Army Institute for Military Assistance, in support
of the Project Manager, Army Tactical Communications
Systems, had requested that HDL engineers develop the
G-76 generator to rapidly recharge field batteries and to
power field radios such as those used by the Army’s Spe-
cial Forces.

Because the G-76 generator fulfills electronic back-up
system requirements ancilliary to nuclear weapons, the
Project Manager, Nuclear Weapons, Dover, NJ, also be-
came a supporter of the program.

Although hand-cranked generators have been around
for a long time, today’s technologically advanced field
equipment demands greater auxiliary power than is cur-
rently available.

Development specifications required that the gener-
ator be compact, reliable, lightweight, durable, and air
drop sustainable, with replacement parts designed for
easy installation.

The G-76 has three major components — alternator
head, electronic box, and stand — and two separate volt-
age outputs. One output provides 0 to 30V, with the volt-
age regulated to cut off at 30V, and actual voltage depen-
dent on cranking speed and load.

The other output starts at 30V and is unregulated.
Maximum current is 8 amperes. Other voltage variations
can be obtained by minimal modifications.

This generator uses an alternator having a samarium
cobalt magnet rotor. These high-energy magnets allow
the alternator to generate 200W at a rotational speed of
approximately 7,000 rpm which is much higher than cur-
rently fielded units.

Total weight of the G-76 is only 13.4 pounds versus 22
pounds for those now in use.

Generator reliability is reportedly high. The required
mean time between failure (MTBF) was set at 750 hours
of operation. Reliability demonstration tests proved an
MTFB of 1,100 hours and the generators were still “going
strong” at the end of the scheduled test.

All phases of developmental and operational testing, in-
cluding parachute drops, are now complete. The contrac-
tor technical data package has also been prepared and it
is anticipated that a production contract will be placed in
June 1980, with generators fielded in mid-1981.

The U.S. Marine Corps and Swedish Armed Forces
have also expressed great interest in the G-76 and have
purchased units which they are currently evaluating.

Missile Tractor Tests Concluded

The second of a series of tests to learn how well infrared
sensors can detect and track incoming intercontinental
ballistic missile warheads has been conducted successful-
ly over the Central Pacific Ocean by the Army’s Ballistic
Missile Defense (BMD) Program.

During the test of the BMD Advanced Technology Cen-
ter’s Designating Optical Tracker (DOT), an infrared tele-
scope was carried to the outer edge of the atmosphere in a
rocket-powered vehicle fired from Kwajalein Atoll. The
telescope located a target complex carried by a Minute-
man III ICBM launched from Vandenberg Air Force
Base, CA.

The target’s trajectory was tracked and a significant
amount of scientific data was recorded. The vehicle car-
rying the telescope was then parachuted into the ocean
for recovery by a U.S. Navy detechment.

The rocket and its payload were sent aloft by Boeing
Aerospace Co.’s Army Systems organization as part of
the company’s Designating Optical Tracker contract with
the BMD Advanced Technology Center, Huntsville, AL.
As prime contractor, Boeing builds the sensor vehicles
and prepares them for flight, conducts the flight tests,
and analyzes data obtained from the flights.

Other companies supporting the DOT program include
Hughes Aircraft Co. for the sensor, Teledyne Systems for
attitude control and flight computer, and the Brunswick
Corp. for booster integration.

The DOT work is part of the Army’s BMD Advanced
Technology program to study various methods for de-
fending the United States against attack by inter-
continental ballistic missiles.

RTL Contracts Exceed $2.5 Million

Research, development, test and evaluation contracts
announced recently by the U.S. Army Aviation R&D
Command’s Research and Technology Laboratories, Mof-
fett Field, CA, total more than $2.5 million.

The largest award, a 31-month $2,350,000 contract, is
with Sikorsky Aircraft Division, United Technologies to
develop technology for a molded composite rear fuselage
transition section for the UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter.
The fuselage will be lighter and cheaper than the current
one.

Mr. Dan Good, project engineer, stated that the fuse-
lage will also be interchangeable with the Black Hawk’s.
He added that use of composite materials will reduce la-
bor requirements because of the reduced number of de-
tailed parts, subassemblies and fasteners.

Contracts for combat maintenance concepts and repair
techniques for helicopters were awarded to Kaman Aero-
space Corp. ($99,953) and Sikorsky Aircraft Division,
United Technologies ($9,000). Work will include a study of

28 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

March-April 1980

potential ballistic damage to helicopters, development of
damage assessment/inspection techniques, and a review
of new field repair concepts.

Meterology Research, Inc., under a 9-month $78,003
contract, will evaluate several promising ice phobic coat-
ings for helicopter rotor blade protection. Spectrometer
probes have already been installed on a modified JUH-1H
helicopter to help analyze the effectiveness of anti-ice
coatings.

Under a 6-month $64,500 contract, Advanced Aero-
mechanisms Corp. will conduct a span flap study to im-
prove the performance of Army fixed wing reconnais-
sance aircraft. A span flap is a mechanical device to in-
crease the wing span of an aircraft while in flight.

HEL Tests Fatigue Replacements

A replacement for the women’s fatigue uniform is being
tested at the U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory
(HEL), Aberdeen (MD) Proving Ground, in cooperation
with the Army Natick (MA) Research and Development
Command.

HEL is evaluating the size and fit of two candidate re-
placements. Both are identical to look at but have vast
differences in size and fit.

Dr. Arthur A. Woodward, project test director for the
program, said the new women’s uniform is a spin-off of
the new battle dress ensemble now being produced for
male soldiers.

HEL is studying whether the Army should extend the
sizes of the male battle dress to accommodate women or
to produce an entirely new line of sizes for females. The
style of the new battle dress uniform differs significantly
from the fatigues now issued to women.

Scheduled for issue in 1982, the new uniform will be
made of a 50 percent cotton, 50 percent nylon material,
and instead of olive drab green, it will be the standard
battle dress tri-color camouflage.

Side button style fatigue trousers will be replaced with
a front button close, and a “snug strap” has been added
for a tighter fitting waist. Accordion pockets are also a
new feature, along with reinforced elbows, knees and
seat.

Fifty women are involved in the testing of the two can-
didate uniforms. The test is specially designed to ferret
out problem areas in the cut and fit of both candidate uni-
forms before they go into mass production.

At the end of the six week test, the compiled data will be
forwarded to the Army Natick Research and Develop-
ment Command for further evaluation.

APG Evaluating British Support Boat

The Aberdeen Proving Ground Materiel Testing Direc-
torate is evaluating a British Combat Support Boat (CSB)
for possible use by the American Army. MTD is testing
the craft’s ability to serve as a Ribbon Bridge Erection
Boat.

The Army established a requirement for this type of
craft in 1972, and MTD has tested all candidates to deter-
mine a suitable boat, according to Mr. Peter Kamenik,
senior test director. The British Army is in the process of
purchasing the boats.

Development testing of the bridge itself was concluded
at APG in the fall of 1975, and the structure has been de-
ployed for use by Army units in Germany and Korea. The
Army is looking for boats to be used with bridge sections.

The British CSB is designed to support bridging and
amphibious operations. “We’re primarily interested in
bridging support,” Kamenik said. “The boat may also be
used as a general purpose work boat.”

MTD will test the boats in “slow water.” They will then
be taken to the Granite City Army Installation, IL, for
“fast water” testing.

Kamenik said testing is divided into individual boat op-
erations testing, and how the boats operate in con-

junction with the Ribbon Bridge and with crafts. The
tests are part of the International Materiel Evaluation
Program supervised by the U.S. Army Test and Evalua-
tion Command.

The British CSB moves by water jet propulsion. It has
twin Saber marine 212 turbo-charged diesel engines, each
rated at 180 horsepower. It is propelled by two 300mm hy-
drojets.

The craft is 8.2 meters (26.9 feet) long, has a beam of 2.5
meters (8.2 feet) and a draft of .56 meters (22 inches). It
weighs 4,000 kilograms (8,818 pounds) with full fuel tanks,
and has a demonstrated thrust of 16 kilo newtons (3,600
lbs. of force) in forward and 9 kilo newtons (2,000 lbs. of
force) in reverse.

While at APG, the boats will undergo technical and
functional performance testing. Technical performance
testing will gauge maneuverability, speed, turning radi-
us, thrust, endurance, and stability of the boat by itself.

In functional performance testing, the crafts are used
to assemble and disassemble a Ribbon Bridge. They will
also propel sections of the structure into place, propel
rafts, carry bridge accessories, and deploy the anchoring
system. They can also be used to transport troops and ma-
teriel.

Each boat normally carries a 3-man crew composed of
an operator and two assistant operators. A Ribbon
Bridge company has nine boats, each of which is trans-
ported individually by truck.

Air Force Assists in Patriot Testing

Air Force jet fighters have swarmed over the sprawling
White Sands (NM) Missile Range since early January
1980 in tests involving Patriot, the Army’s newest air de-
fense system.

In what has been described as the largest operation of
its kind at this National Range, up to 50 Air Force fight-
ers were used during large scale operations. The tests, ac-
cording to MG Oliver D. Street, Patriot project manager,
were designed to demonstrate troop proficiency in oper-
ating the Patriot system against large numbers of air-
craft.

Personnel from Army Air Defense Center, Fort Bliss,
TX, and WSMR’s Army Materiel Test and Evaluation Di-
rectorate (ARMTE) formed a test battalion to demon-
strate man/machine interface in air defense operations.

Patriot, the Army’s air defense system of the 1980s, has
undergone extensive testing at White Sands Missile
Range and is now in preproduction operational testing.

According to Mr. George Clegg, ARMTE’s project engi-
neer, the test is believed to be the largest of its kind in
terms of aircraft used to test Army missile systems at
White Sands.

Aircraft were provided through the 12th Air Force,
based at Austin, TX. Holloman Air Force Base’s 49th Tac-
tical Fighter Wing and its 479th Tactical Training Wing
provided F-15s and T-38s.

The 27th Tactical Fighter Wing, based at Cannon AFB,
near Clovis, NM, flew F-llls, while the 388th TFW from
Hill AFB, UT, and the 474th TFW, Nellis AFB, NV, pro-
vided F-4 aircraft. The Air National Guard’s 150th Tactic-
al Fighter Group, based at Kirtland AFB, NM, flew A-7
aircraft during the tracking tests.

Campbell Soldiers Test Black Hawk

Using an Air Force C-5 transport aircraft, soldiers of
the 101st (Air Assault) Airborne Division at Fort Camp-
bell, KY, successfully tested the air transportability fea-
tures of the Black Hawk during a recent simulated de-
ployment exercise.

A team comprised of six soldiers, alerted only a short
time before the exercise began, took approximately one
hour and 45 minutes to prepare each helicopter for air
transport and another two hours and 45 minutes to com-
pletely load the helicopters aboard the C-5.

March-April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 29

Another purpose of the exercise was to provide the sol-
dier team with experience in breaking down, loading, un-
loading and reassembling the aircraft to flyable statue
and to a combat ready condition. To prepare the helicop-
ters for shipment aboard the C-5, principal tasks included
folding the main rotor blades, folding the tail rotor
blades, and the removal of the stabilator.

The 101st Division Black Hawk team first loaded five of
the helicopters aboard the transport aircraft, simulated
their deployment and then reloaded the original five plus
another one making a total of 11.

CPT William Zanow, commander of the exercise said “it
was a good test for the soldier team who did very well for
the first such exercise.” He also noted “the soldiers re-
mained in good spirits despite the long hours involved.”

Ribbon Bridge Upgrade Tests End

Almost two months of near round-the-clock upgrade
testing of the class 60 ribbon bridge at APG to determine
if the Army’s standard class 60 bridge can be upgraded to
do class 70 work has ended, with the results termed gen-
erally successful. However, immediate results have been
mixed, Materiel Testing Directorate (MTD) officials said
at the conclusion of the tests.

A class 60 bridge is generally one that can support 60
tons of weight on its sections. A class 70 bridge should
support about 70 tons. Testing revolved around putting a
class 60 bridge in place across a pond and running heavy
tanks and other vehicles and loads over it 5,000 times.

“What we’ve been doing with this project is trying to
establish whether this type of class 60 bridge can be used
in a higher class role. We did some strain gauge work and
ran the crossings to test for stress and wear,” said Mr. Ed
Mahan, civilian bridge test director. There had been some
minor failures in the tests, “but that is to be expected.”

Mahan said information gained from the tests is being
evaluated locally and at the Army’s Mobility Equipment
R&D Command. “We’re finished here with our testing.
The next state of testing will be the fast water tests ME-
RADCOM will do on the Mississippi River later this
year,” Mahan said.

Hand Device Alerts Troops to Toxins

Designated the XM207, an illuminated, audible, chem-
ical attack signal — designed to alert troops to the pres-
ence of toxic chemicals — is in the engineering develop-
ment stage in the Munitions Development Branch at the
U.S. Army Armament R&D Command’s Chemical Sys-
tems Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

A hand-held cylindrical self-contained munition, the de-
vice is hand fired by hitting a cap containing a firing pin
against a percussion primer. This action ignites a rocket
that ascends to more than 500 feet (152 meters) where it
ejects a payload consisting of a pyrotechnic whistle as
well as a cluster of three pyrotechnic stars, two white and
one red.

Field troops are alerted to a chemical attack by either
the audible signal or by the cluster of stars resembling a
spectacular fireworks display, or a combination of both.

Mr. Mitchell Penn, a CSL chemist heads the developing
team that includes Mr. Cecil Hassell, a chemist, and Ms.
Mary Kraybill, a chemical engineer.

Penn said current plans call for each military field com-
pany to carry eight XM207 rounds. The signal munition is
expected to be fielded in 1984.

Black Hawk Undergoes Tropic Tests

The U.S. Army’s Black Hawk UH-60A Utility and Troop
Transport Helicopter #715 has arrived at the U.S. Army
Tropic Test Center (USATTC) Corozal, for seven months
of testing under the most punishing jungle conditions.

The test will be conducted by personnel from the U.S.
Army Aviation Research and Development Command
(AVRADCOM), St. Louis, MO, in coordination with
USATTC. The aircraft will be evaluated for high perform-
ance in a steaming tropical environment with a minimum

of maintenance support.

The Black Hawk can carry 11 fully equipped combat
troops and a crew of three. It cruises at speeds in excess
of 145 knots. It is designed to operate with little mainte-
nance as compared to current helicopters in the Army in-
ventory, resulting in lower life cycle cost.

When initial testing has been completed, Black Hawk
will be flown to USATTC’s test area for four months of
exposure testing after which final flight testing will be
accomplished. Built by Sikorsky Aircraft of Stratford, CT,
the Black Hawk is scheduled to replace the Army’s long-
serving UH-1 Hueys during the 1980s.

Conferences & Symposia . . .

White House Conference

Aids Availability of Information

The availability of unclassified Army RDA literature
may be enhanced as the result of a recent conference.

In 1908 Theodore Roosevelt convened the first White
House Conference on a subject of conservation and natu-
ral resources. Since then, 60 White House conferences
have convened, however, few have had the impact on pub-
lic policy as is expected from the most recent one held 15-
19 Nov. 1979 on “Library and Information Services.”

This conference, first proposed in 1957, was nurtured in
the library and information circles and received active
support from Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Car-
ter. In 1974 a joint resolution was signed into Public Law
93-568 which set forth the goal: “To develop recommenda-
tions for the further improvement of the nations libraries
and information centers and their use by the public” con-
sistent with seven policies set forth in the law:

1. Access to information and ideas. 2. The preservation
and the dissemination of information. 3. The growth and
augmentation of the nation’s libraries and information
centers. 4. New achievements in technology. 5. Use of ad-
vanced technology by libraries and information centers.
6. The National Commission plans for meeting national
needs for library and information services. 7. Expanding
access to libraries and information centers will require
public understanding and support.

For the past two years pre-White House conferences,
were held at the regional level, and were attended by as
many as 100,000 people. These resulted in the selection of
over 700 delegates, alternates, and observers from the 50
states, six territories, Indian reservations and the Dis-
trict of Columbia to attend the White House Conference.

Two-thirds of the participants at the pre- and final con-
ferences were, lay citizens, users and potential users of
library and information services and one-third were from
the library and information science community.

The President’s opening address was followed by pre-
sentations and discussions of five major conference
themes: 1. Meeting Personal Needs. 2. Enhancing Life-
long Learning. 3. Improving Organizations and the Pro-
fessions. 4. Effectively Governing Our Society. 5. Increas-
ing International Understanding and Cooperation.

The delegates, alternates and observers discussed
these themes in 34 workshop sessions. These sessions re-
sulted in numerous resolutions which were presented at
the final plenary session, were voted upon by the entire
delegation and were reduced to 17 final resolutions. These
resolutions plus 16 petitions independently submitted
will represent the product of the conference to be sub-
mitted to the President. The President will present a re-
port to the Congress within 120 days.

The last session of the conference was a joint congres-
sional hearing cochaired by Senator Claiborne Pell and
Representative William Ford, who are chairmen of the
Senate and House Subcommittees that have jurisdiction
over most federal library and information services.

Some of the issues and resolutions of the White House
conference which relate to the Army’s research and de-
velopment address: Access to government publications,

30 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

March-April 1980

develop a National Information Policy, preservation of li-
brary and information resources, and adoption of nation-
al and international standards (publishing, producing, or-
ganization, storing and transmitting information).

Mr. Edward J. Kolb at HQ DARCOM is the Army’s prin-
cipal technical information officer, and is responsible for
management of Program Element 6.58.03 Technical In-
formation Activities, for improving technical information
access and flow, and for the policy and technical coordina-
tion of all of the Army’s technical libraries.

He was a staff member of the White House Conference
on Libraries and Information Services, and in that role
coordinated the “facilitators” of the 34 simultaneous
workshops, and assisted in staffing the delegations ses-
sions. Questions on the Army program involving the tech-
nical Libraries and Information Services should be ad-
dressed to Mr. Kolb, telephone: AC 202 274-9828, or Auto-
von 284-9828.

Natick Hosts Clothing/Equipment Meet

More than 150 representatives of the combat arms of
each of the four services met recently with clothing and
personal equipment developers at the U.S. Army Natick
(MA) Research and Development Command to determine
needs of the combat soldier in cold environments.

During the 3-day confei'ence, troop experiences in cold
weather activities were related by Army, Navy, Air Force
and Marine Corps field commanders and included several
recommendations for changes in equipment design and
utilization.

Prior to the conferees adjourning into three individual
workshop sessions on clothing, footwear, personal and
oversnow equipment and then reconvening into a sum-
mary session, three major presentations were heard.

Mr. John V. E. Hansen, director of Natick’s Clothing,
Equipment and Materials Engineering Laboratory (CE-
MEL), discussed the current developmental aims of his
laboratory. Mr. George Assai and Ms. Rosalie Boynton,
Army Foreign Science and Technology Center, presented
their assessment of cold weather operations and cold
weather clothing used by a potential threat nation.

The comments and recommendations emanating from
the 3-day session, chaired by Mr. Leonard Campbell,
chief, Clothing Branch, CEMEL, will form the basis of
both a short term and long range development technical
plan for cold weather (wet and dry) clothing and equip-
ment.

HDL Will Host Smoke Symposium IV

COL Samuel L. Eure, project manager for Smoke/Ob-
scurants at Aberdeen (MD) Proving Ground, has an-
nounced scheduling of Smoke Symposium IV at Harry
Diamond Laboratories, Adelphi, MD, 22-23 April 1980.
Primary goal of the symposium will be to present papers
and conduct discussions within the obscurant/electro-op-
tical community.

The meeting will include dissemination of information
gathered by field and laboratory testing, modeling, re-
search and development, training, tactics and doctrine,
and smoke toxicology. Papers are being solicited from
government, contractor and academic communities.

The tentative agenda will cover: modeling; testing, in-
strumentation, and methodology; smoke/obscurant tech-
nology and hardware development; doctrine and train-
ing, concepts and systems evaluation; and, health hazard
assessment of smoke.

The symposium will be classified Confidential. Attend-
ees should forward security clearances, referencing
Smoke Symposium IV to Project Manager, Smoke/Obscu-
rants, ATTN: DRCPM-SMK-T/MAJ Golly, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD 21005. Additional information can
be obtained from Project Manager, Smoke/Obscurants by
calling Autovon 283-5411/5605 (Mr. W. Klimek or MAJ L.
Golly).

Awards . . .

Operation Cherry Blossom Winners
Return From 9-Day Visit to Tokyo

OPERATION CHERRY BLOSSOM winners, Elisabeth
Bryenton and David Dvorak flank Japan Student Science
Award winner Kaoru Wada, during ceremonies in Tokyo,
at which about 1+00 Japanese students were recognized for
their high school science projects.

Elizabeth A. Bryenton and David J. Dvorak, returned
home recently, after a 9-day visit to Japan where they
represented the United States at the 23d Annual Japan
Student Science Awards Program in Tokyo.

The two were guests of honor during the awards cere-
monies at which about 400 Japanese students were recog-
nized for their high school science projects. The young
Midwestern students also met and talked with the Prince
and Princess Hitachi during the ceremonies.

Miss Bryenton of Fairview Park, OH, was selected win-
ner of the “Operation Cherry Blossom” trip by a panel of
Army judges at the 30th International Science and Engi-
neering Fair (ISEF) held last year at San Antonio, TX.

Now a freshman at Princeton University, she spent
four and a half years researching her project “The Effect
of Natural Nitrogen Fixation Through Algal Inoculants
on Plant Growth and Development.” The exhibit demon-
strated that treatment of various plants and grain crops
with an algal inoculant was found to produce results at
least equal to, and in many cases better than, those ob-
tained with synthetic nitrogen compounds that require
large amounts of petroleum.

Dvorak, now a freshman at the Rose-Hulman Institute
of Technology in Terre Haute, IN, was chosen by a sepa-
rate screening process by the Navy as their representa-
tive to the awards program.

The Army has been participating in Operation Cherry
Blossom since 1963, when it was initiated in cooperation
with the Japanese Newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun, as part
of an effort to stimulate, encourage and reward ex-
ceptionally talented high school students in physical and
life science fields. The Association of the U.S. Army con-
tributes $100 to the Army winner of the trip.

In addition to participation in the Japanese Student
Science Fair Awards Ceremonies, on a non-competitive
basis, the itinerary included a visit to the Telecommuni-
cations Science Hall and the National Institute of Agri-
cultural Science in Tokyo. At the American Embassy, the
visitors met with Mr. J. L. Bloom, counsellor for Scientific
and Technological Affairs, and Dr. Leon H. Fisher, senior
scientist of the Office of Naval Research Scientific Liaison
Group.

They also paid a courtesy call on BG Joseph H. Kastner,
Chief of Staff, U.S. Army Japan (USARJ), and LTC Joseph
E. Burlas, chief of the Public Affairs Office, USARJ,
which coordinated and arranged their visit.

Following Tokyo area visits, the students spent three

March- April 1980

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 31

days in Kyoto and stopped in Hawaii where they toured
points of interest before returning home.

Both ISEF winners of Operation Cherry Blossom felt
the trip to be a most memorable and educational one. “I
learned that even though Japanese may do things dif-
ferently than Americans, they have a very efficient and
workable society,” Miss Bryenton summarized. “For ex-
ample, a bow is not a customary greeting for us, however,
neither is a handshake for the Japanese. I’ve also discov-
ered that there doesn’t have to be a certain gesture or
language spoken to communicate. Almost anything can
be accomplished through a universal expression, a
smile.”

U.S. Army participation in the ISEF is arranged by the
U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Anne G. Taylor was ARO action officer; Mr. James P. Wil-
liams Jr., ARO, was escort for the student’s visit to Japan.

Career Programs . . .

NRL to Present Software Course

The Naval Research Laboratory will present a 2-week
course on “Software Engineering Principles” 14-25 July
1980. The course will be given at the U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolis, MD.

The course will concentrate on technical problems of
software design. Topics to be covered include program
families, formal specifications, responses to undesired
events, documentation, and cooperating sequential pro-
cesses.

All DOD civilian and military personnel involved in the
acquisition or development of software are eligible. The
course is unclassified.

Applicants should have a basic knowledge of DOD soft-
ware problems and policies, and be familiar with FOR-
TRAN or some other programing language such as PL/I
or COBOL.

Course enrollment is limited to 50 students. There will
be a $300-$400 registration fee and a $35 activities fee.
Persons interested should contact Mr. Louis Chmura,
Code 7503, Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC 20375,
telephone (202) 297-3249 or Autovon 297-3249; or Ms. Jan-
et Stroup, same address, telephone (202) 767-3212 or Auto-
von 297-3212.

Personnel Actions . . .

Johnson Joins ATACS PM Office

The U.S. Army Communications Research and Devel-
opment Command has announced the appointment of Mr.
Walter E. Johnson as deputy project manager for Army
Tactical Communications Systems (ATACS).

Johnson was previously assigned to Systems Division,
Joint Tactical Communications (TRI-TAC) Office as team
leader for the definition of portions of the TRI-TAC Sys-
tems architecture for Tactical Switched Communications
Systems. His responsibility included the surface Trunk
Transmission Subsystem, the Ancillary Subsystems and
the TRI-TAC system specification.

Johnson also served as TRI-TAC representative on sev-
eral committees, including the Networks Working Group
of the Committee for Interoperability of DOD Telecom-
munications, the JINTACCS Data/Communications Tech-
nical Coordination Committee (DCTCC) and the ECOM
Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee.

Johnson began his civilian service with Field Engineer-
ing Division, Procurement and Maintenance Directorate
of the Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories as a con-
tracting officers technical representative on production
contracts for radio test equipment.

Other assignments have included project engineer,
COMSEC Division, COMM/ADP Laboratories; program

manager in the Avionics Commodity Office, ECOM, and
later as data manager in the Configuration Management
Division, Joint Engineering Agency, Mallard Project un-
til its termination in 1970.

He has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
from Howard University, and he has also attended nu-
merous DOD sponsored technical and managerial courses
including the Defense Weapons Systems Management
Course and Personnel Management for Executives.

Diedrichsen Directs SE&I Center

Mr. Loren D. Diedrichsen
has been appointed director
of the Army Communication
R&D Command’s Center for
Systems Engineering and In-
tegration. He will serve as
technical advisor on systems
engineering technology.

Diedrichsen was formerly
assigned as chief, Systems
Division, Joint Tactical Com-
munications (TRI-TAC) Of-
fice, DOD, and as chairman of
the Technical Support Staff
of the Committee on Inter-
operability of DOD Telecommunications.

He began his professional career as an electronics engi-
neer in the Communications Department of the Army
Signal Research and Development Laboratory. He later
served as the Army member of the DCA Technical Panel
for the Overseas AUTOVON Program.

In 1967, he was named director, Systems Engineering
Division, Program Manager’s Office, Mallard Project and
served as chairman of the Systems Aspects area of the
Mallard International System Selection Board. He was
also chief of the Systems Design Division, International
Joint Engineering Agency of the Mallard Project.

Diedrichsen holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engi-
neering from Iowa State University, and a master’s de-
gree in operations research from Stevens Institute of
Technology. He has received an Exceptional Civilian
Service award and two MCS awards.

Reader’s Guide . . .

Cold Regions Bibliography Available

The Bibliography on Cold Regions Science and Tech-
nology, published by the U.S. Army Cold Regions Re-
search and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Hanover,
NH, is now available through an on-line computer re-
trieval system.

The retrieval services are available to the general pub-
lic by on-line computer from the Systems Development
Corp., Santa Monica, CA. The Cold Regions Bibliography
may be accessed on-line by keywords, authors, titles, or
accession number.

The bibliography, prepared by the Science and Tech-
nology Division, Library of Congress, is recognized as a
foremost source of worldwide literature on snow, ice and
frozen ground, and their relationships to engineering,
navigation, behavior and operations of materials and
equipment and transportation.

The Bibliography has been published since 1951, origi-
nally by the Snow, Ice and Permafrost Research Estab-
lishment, a predecessor organization of CRREL. Over
4,000 entries are added annually to the publication.

The retrieval system contains all entries in the Bibliog-
raphy since 1968 (Volume 23). In addition, entries from
the Antarctic Bibliography, published by the National
Science Foundation, from 1962 (Volume 1) are included.
For more information on access to the system contact
Systems Development Corp., 2500 Colorado Ave., Santa
Monica, CA 90406.

32 ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION MAGAZINE

March-April 1980

Summary of Selected RDTE Systems Planned for FY 1981

The following is a summary list of selected FY81 RDTE
systems, the funds requested to carry out these programs ,
and a brief description of work to be performed. The list
appeared in a Statement to the Congress on the FY81 Ar-

FY 81 Planned Program: Selected RDTE Systems

System

Budget

Request

($in

Millions)

Capsule Summary of
Work to be Performed

Advanced Attack
Helicopter

171.6

Contractor and Government
testing continues culminat-
ing in OTII. Long lead time
item contract award in Feb
81. Production decision in
Dec. 81.

AH-1S Cobra/TOW

9.1

Begin full scale ED to add
FUR capability to gunners
sight.

Army Helicopter
Improvement Program

5.0

Perform risk reduction anal-
ysis of air-frame modifica-
tion and develop preliminary
designs for system integra-
tion. Release RFP for air-
frame modifications.

ATGM Improvements

21.2

Conduct demonstration of
technical alternatives for
flight test in FY 82.

CH-47 Modernization

.6

Complete PEP effort to as-
sure effective producibility.

Chaparral

20.6

Complete FLIR development.
Begin development of im-
proved guidance based on
POST concept.

Copperhead

6.0

Begin warhead enhance-
ment program. Complete
targeting to provide TACFIRE
programming data.

Corps Support
Weapon System

7.6

Flight test of total endgame
will be conducted under
DARPA technology demon-
stration program. Prepara-
tion for ASARC/DSARC.

DIVAD Gun

64.7

ASARC/DSARC production
decision requested.

Fire Support Team
Vehicle (FISTV)

8.1

Complete integration of
GLLD and north-seeking
gyro into vehicle. Fabricate
six prototypes.

General Support
Rocket System

64.2

Complete design update;
start maturation develop-
ment tests.

Guardrail

3.9

Complete prototyping of one
unit set with two aircraft.

Hellfire

54.8

Complete developmental tests

and tech data package; award
contract for IPF and pre-
pare for Milestone III de-
cision. Complete Black Hawk
Hellfire demonstration. Start
ED on fire-and-forget seeker.

my RDTE and Procurement Appropriations by Assistant
Secretary of the Army (RDA) Dr. Percy A. Pierre and Ar-
my Deputy Chief of Staff for RDA LTG Donald R. Keith.

System

Budget
Request
($ in
Millions)

Capsule Summary of
Work to be Performed

High Survivability
Test Vehicle-
Lightweight
(HSTVL)

7.7

(Army

share)

HIMAG and HSTVL System
tests will be completed and
a final report will be pre-
pared.

Infantry Fighting
Vehicle/Cavalry
Fighting Vehicle

41.9

Continue development of
training devices, test mea-
surement and diagnostic
equipment and logistic sup-
port.

Patrolt

51.6

Testing of support con-
cepts and tests of first pro-
duction units will be initiated.

Pershing II

146.0

Procurement and fabrication
of prototype hardware for
DT/OT II will continue. Fabri-
cation of seven prototype
RV’s.

Position Locating
Reporting System

12.0

(Army)

share)

Complete development; ini-
tiate testing.

Remotely Piloted
Vehicles

54.2

Complete design. Critical
design review. Fabrication
of hardware and software.
Complete initial system and
integrate contractor hard-
ware.

US Roland

12.6

Complete classroom trainer;
develop maintenance train-
ing simulator. Hold DSARC
III B.

Stand Off Target
Acquisition System
(SOTAS)

55.0

Integrate subsystems (air-
borne radar, data link,
ground stations). Initiate DT
II.

Stinger

9.9

Complete Stinger-POST ED
and DT/OT II.

TOW

20.8

Continue development of 6"
warhead and launcher and
missile modifications.

Viper

5.8

Hold In-Process review to
obtain limited production
approval.

XM1

51.3

Complete DTIII; continue
ILS maturity program; con-
duct ASARC/DSARC IMA for
full production and deploy-
ment decision.

A detailed description of these and all other Army RDTE programs
is contained in the Congressional Descriptive Summaries.

Total RDTE FY 81 Budget Request:

$3,233 Billion

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Headquarters

U S Army Materiel Development & Readiness Comma
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
DEPARTMENTOFTHE ARMY
DoD 314

CONTROLLED CIRCULATION RATE

1%

ft

ft

mi

n

n

MINE SYSTEM

(Modular Pack Mine System)